A Great Debate for tennis fans: Greatest player ever?

Great Debates
1

I thought about posting this in MPIMS, since that is probably where the mods will put it. But God hates a coward, and besides - as far as I am concerned, this is a topic worthy of the Great Debate forum.

I think I am pretty safe in saying that the general consensus is that Sampras is considered the greatest grass court player ever, and probably the greatest player ever, period. Proponents cite the record Slam titles, six years at No. 1, seven (!) Wimbledon titles, etc. etc.

What could Agassi do between now and the end of his career to be given serious consideration as ‘the best ever’? Agassi has a career Grand Slam - and if he wins two more matches by Sunday, he will have two career Slams. The ability to beat the best on any surface, in my mind, should detract from the importance we place on Sampras’ seven Wimbledon titles, and magnify the fact that Pete is simply utterly and completely helpless on clay.

Agassi has the better Davis Cup record. Longetivity? Agassi was ranked as high as No. 3 back in 1990-91. 10 years later, there he is, ranked No. 1 as of next Monday. Sampras had one long stretch - six years - Agassi has simply spread his out more. Agassi has had a greater ‘intangible’ impact on the game - he got the fans out, he was exciting to watch, and his personality has done much more for the game (if you think personality and being exciting to watch don’t matter, think about why Lendle’s name is always missing from these debates about the best ever).

AA has seven Slam titles now. Suppose he gets to double-digits and ends the next two years at number one. In my book, that would pretty much seal the deal: best ever.

Points that I have considered: Head to head - a drawback, but I am sure there are players with a winning record against Sampras. Consecutive years at No. 1: And we can’t penalize Sampras because Agassi wasn’t there year after year to push him. This is the biggest point in favor of Sampras; I think Agassi will need to finish the next two years at No. 1 to balance the ‘longetivity’ factor out.

2

Martina Navratilova.

3

LOL - but I am sure I am not the only one thinking that the ATP and WTA tours should be forcing Graf and Agassi to procreate <g>.

4

And off to IMHO in 1…2…3…

5

Andy Roddick has potential. Keep your eyes open.

Sampras has the best argument right now because he has so many records. But I agree with you that Agassi is the better player. He is more well-rounded but he allowed himself in the earlier part of his career to falter. He wouldn’t show up for tournaments, he played half-assed in a lot of the smaller tournaments, he dated Brooke Shields. But no one ever doubted that he was one of the best players ever even when he was in the low 100s. He played great when he wanted to (in the slams). Then he turned 29 and took his career seriously. He dominated the circuit, winning three slams in a year and moving his total to seven.

He’s so healthy and fit I think he will outlast Sampras. Pete seems tired of the game. He has nothing else to prove, he’s got everything but the French and that seems hopeless for him. It will be his scarlet letter.

But Andre still wants more success. He is playing in top form in Wimbledon and has a pretty good shot at winning it. If he gets it, that will be another record–nine years between Wimbledons. But he has to win about 5 more to have a solid argument.

As for the head-to-heads, yeah Pete has got that but they haven’t been meeting lately since Pete’s been dropping out in the earlier rounds.

6

Yeah, but keeping your eyes open doesn’t help you return that serve. You can’t hit what you can’t see <g>. You are right; A-Rod has serious game, and he moves a lot better than people think.

**

Pete has seemed tired since well before Wimbly last year, and Rafter had him dead to rights… When you mean five more, do you mean five more slams, or five more Wimbledons?

Agassi has split the last 10 matches against Sampras. The have faced each other only once this year (Agassi) and only once in all of 2000 (Agassi). Even given Sampras’ six-year stint at the top, his advantage is only 17-13. Sampras’ advantage over Michael Chang is only 11-8.

7

Martina!

No.1 player in the world 7 times (1978-79,82-86); won her record 9th Wimbledon singles title in 1990; also won 4 U.S. Opens, 3 Australian and 2 French; in all, won 18 Grand Slam singles titles and 37 Grand Slam doubles titles; retired as all-time leader among men and women in singles titles (167) and money won ($20.3 million) over 21 years; inducted into International Tennis Hall of Fame in 2000.

8

My vote goes to… Steffi Graf!

Most weeks at No.1, man or woman (378 weeks), most consecutive weeks at No. 1 (186 weesk) best career win-loss record (min. 25 tournaments); .910 to Navratilova’s .887, only person to win all four slams at least four times, only person to win the Golden Slam, winning record against all major opponents, #1 at end of year for 8 consecutive years, 13 consecutive Slam final appearences, reached final of all four slams three times… the list goes on and on…

9

BJK. on top of all the tournaments she won she was instrumental in setting up the game as it is today, to be able to take all that pressure (in many differant forms)and still play to win puts her up at the top for me.

10

Rod Laver.

Not only did the guy win two Grand Slams (something no other man has done), but he’d likely have won a lot MORE big events, had antiquated rules involving amateurism not kept him out.

11

King Rat, Pete Sampras could whoop Martina 99 times out of 100 anyday, anytime. Besides, Steffi Graf is the best female player of all time.

astorian, Rod Laver played in the days when you only had to play the final the following year if you won the tournament the year before.

Pete Sampras is probably the best player of all time, though Andre was playing the best tennis ever for about a 3 month period in early 2000(when he won the Australian Open). But, Sampras has everything and isn’t streaky like Andre. Sampras is better or equal in every aspect of Andre’s game except for return-of-serve(Andre is beyond belief in that area). The only thing Andre is even close to being slighty better at is endurance, but I still think Pete is equal there.

Sure, Pete is pretty much finished now; I’d be impressed if he won another Grand Slam. But, he is the best player I’ve ever seen in action, either presently or in the past. If everyone used wooden racquets like the good-old days, he’d probably would have won the French Open several times.

Actually, the whole wooden-raquet thing is another debate that goes on eternally? Should they have allowed modern raquets? Sure, it destroyed the purity of the game, but it allowed for power-hitters like Venus Williams to dominate the game.

Gosh, I love tennis and am glad to see a topic on it. But don’t sports debates usually go in IMHO because of their, well, less-than-important quality.

12

99 times out of 100 my ass. Steffi Graf is the best female of all time, agreed - and she would be lucky to win * a game *, let alone a set, off any male player ever ranked in the top 50.

Best ‘streak’ of tennis ever? Interesting question. Andre’s streak of four consecutive GS finals a year or so ago, and then earlier this year (won AO, then Indian Wells, beating Hewitt and Sampras, and the Miami Open, beating Rafter in the process), would have to be up there. Courier had a streak for a while when he was damn near unbeatable, until everyone else caught on to his game. <hijack> I personally hated Courier because he was such an asshole. My impression of him was not improved by seeing him play twice - he was simply the biggest jerk to tournament officials, ball boys/girls, everyone. No-one was happier to see his ranking fall like a rock.</hijack>

I think Sampras has the better first serve, the better second serve, the better backhand and by far the better net skills. But I still think Andre has the better pure forehand, the better movement, and the better endurance. As Andre pointed out, the current Andre would beat the Andre of a couple of years ago 2 and 3.

One way to solve this question: Suppose your life was on the line, and you had to choose one male tennis player to play for you. He wins, you live. He loses, you die. Surface is chosen randomly. Who do you choose, assuming each player is playing at his peak/best? You don’t really dare choose Sampras, because if the match is on clay, your ass is grass (pun intended). If you can’t choose Sampras, I think you have a hard time with the argument that he is the greatest player ever. His clay court ability is just too much of a weakness.

Modern racket technology opened the door to tennis for an entire generation of recreational players - it made it easier for us mere mortals to gain a level of profiency that made the game fun. That, in turn, is what led to the the development of players like the Williams sisters, etc. Each player has to develop in line with the technology of the times, but I still have a sense that Agassi and Sampras would have dominated with wooden rackets. And I suspect Laver would have been pretty tough to beat had he played in the current day and age with graphite and titanium rackets.

13

Ivan Lendl.

He was the purest tactician, calm and unwavering, dissecting all with ruthless efficiency.

Runners-up nods to Jimmy Conners, a guy always outmatched in strength, size, speed, power, and grace. But the toughest never-say-die attitude and created true magic out of nothingness.

Sampras is decent, and of course he wins consistently. But I think he is in something of a vacant era competition-wise. Agassi is really the only other premier player out there, but suffers from inconsistency. If Sampras has been contemporaries with Edberg, Lendl, MacEnroe, Becker in the talent-saturated '80’s he wouldn’t have stood a chance.

14

… who couldn’t win on grass. Like Sampars, Lendl suffers from a glaring weakness. Another reason why his name rarely comes up in these ‘best ever’ discussions.

Conners and Borg are certainly among the best ever, but to be ‘the’ best, you have to have numbers to prove it. I also agree that while the overall level of tennis has certainly improved, Sampras has only had Agassi as a worthy rival, and that only every other year <g>. Think about how many Grand Slams Borg, Conners or McEnroe would have if the other two hadn’t been around. I personally would put Borg over Sampras; winning the Winning the French and Wimbledon back to back once is incredible - doing it, what, five times? is simply outrageous.

Miscellaneous thought: I think Conners would have driven Sampras nuts <g>.

Well, to an extent. I think Sampras beats Lendl, Edberg and Becker. McEnroe, Borg, Conners? Tough. Remember, Sampras has often played fairly tough opponents in his 12 GS titles: Agassi a couple of times, Becker, Goran (on grass; not a lot of fun), Rafter (two-time US champ), Moya (French Open champ) T. Martin (best player never to win a Slam). I just think the biggest mark against Sampras is his poor performance on clay and at the French.

15

I think that casdave correctly points out that greatness is more than just crunching numbers. I also think that it is a mistake to automatically dismiss a woman as “the greatest” just because she can not compete with her male counterparts. It’s two different games - but they are both tennis. It’s like saying that only heavyweight boxers need apply for the title of “greatest”. So I am perfectly comfortable saying that I think that Martina is the greatest (but actually, no one person is really the greatest - though Tiger Woods is disturbing that theory) even though as you say Dragon Ash she surely couldn’t win a game, let alone a set, from Sampras.

astorian Laver’s two grand slams is a record that will probably never be broken.

16

Well, still tennis, but I don’t think we can directly compare the men’s game with the women’s. And I am not dismissing Martina because she can not compete with Sampras or other male counterparts - I am dismissing her because I don’t think she can compete with Graf. I think Graf is the greatest female tennis player ever.

I think debating who has been the most dominant person (in their sport, of course – MJ in basketball vs Tiger in golf vs Gretzky in hockey vs Edwin Moses in the 400m hurdles vs Borg/Sampras in mens tennis vs Graf in woman’s tennis, etc.) is a fascinating, but different, topic. I personally think Tiger has been/will prove to be by far the most dominant, but Gretzky did more to change his sport than MJ and certainly Tiger. Golf being golf, Tiger will probably have little impact on how the sport is played. Maybe on how golfers train, but not on how they play.

17

Navratilova is “arguably the greatest player of all time”
— tennis commentator Bud Collins

Bud Coillins on Steffi’s farewell
So where better to say good-bye to the world’s greatest
tennis player than in the world’s most famous arena — the
place where Graf has raised five Chase Championship
trophies?

Bud Collins
NBC Sports
Pete Sampras, perhaps the greatest player who has donned modern cleats at Wimbledon, will attempt to win a record 13th Grand Slam title…

Jeez, Dragon Ash if good 'ol Bud Collins can’t decide who the greatest is, I sure can’t! Now I am sure that there are all kinds of lists out there as to who is the “greatest”. But what does that mean? I agree that if you don’t have the numbers, you aren’t in contention. But again, greatness means other qualities as well. What is the difference between the greatest ever and the most dominant ever? Are you really asking the question: If you took all the greatest tennis players that ever were and put them in a tournament, who would emerge victorious? But I don’t think that would work. As they say, On Any Given Sunday…Or are you trying to sift and crunch statistics?

18

A little of both <g>. I agree, trying to compare against generations is problematic (but fun, which is why we do it <g>). I guess I am trying to weight the statistics, if you see what I mean.

Anyway, I am simply a big tennis fan. I guess tennis is not as popular in the US as it is in Europe, so I miss these kind of (probably meaningless) discussions.

19

Though the rules of competition were somewhat different in Rod Laver’s day, the fact remains that he beat the best of the best, consistently.

The old rules of amateurism were not done away with until the late 1960s or early 1970s (I’d have to look that up, and I’m too lazy!). Those rules existed primarily to keep the “riff-raff” out of elite country clubs, and to insure that rich dilettantes wouldn’t have to rub elbows with athletes who weren’t wealthy aristocrats.

Rod Laver was not a wealthy aristocrat, and had to make a living. Full-time amateurism wasn’t an option for him. Hence, he was forced to skip numerous events he surely would have won.

So, my contention is that Laver, already the most dominant male player of all time, would have been even MORE dominant if antiquated rules hadn’t barred him from so many events.

20

I’m going to side with the people picking some of the older folks.

I was watching tennis avidly back in the McEnroe/Connors/Lendl/Borg era, and it was just phenomenal tennis. Of that bunch, I’m going to pick Jimmy Connors.

For one thing, I think longevity and consistency has to count for something. Connors reached at least the quarters of the U.S. Open for 16 of 19 years that he played in it. That’s pretty amazing. He also won 125 singles titles, and eight grand slam titles. And as others have said, this was at a time when tennis was at its peak of popularity, and the competition was stiff. And during this time, Connors was ranked No. 1 for 159 consecutive weeks, the longest hold on the No. 1 spot in the history of men’s tennis. That’s gotta be worth something when figuring out who is the best.

In the longevity department, we shouldn’t forget Ken Rosewall, undoubtedly the best player to never win Wimbledon. He won 18 grand slam titles, and played professional tennis for more than 30 years. And this was before the open era, when you weren’t allowed to play in the Grand Slam once you turned pro, which Rosewall did in 1955. When the open era started in 1969, Rosewall was already way past his prime, but he promptly won the U.S. open two years in a row. After 1968 he won 32 more singles titles, despite being in his mid-late thirties.

I seem to recall that he reached the final of the U.S. Open or some other slam tournament when he was something like 47. He lost to Connors in the finals at Wimbledon in 1974, at age 40. This is all the more remarkable in that he was a little guy and was at a natural disadvantage against larger players.

How many slam titles would Rosewall or Rod Laver have today if they had been allowed to compete during the 10 years when they were at their peak?

Also, because of the older racket technology, in my opinion you had to have a much more well-rounded game in order to win constistently. Nowadays, a guy with a booming serve can win without having much in the way of a volley game, for example. Too many of today’s players are one-trick ponies.

And what about the real old-timers? Big Bill Tilden, Margaret Court, Don Budge? Margaret Court won 24 Grand Slam singles titles (compared to Martina’s 18, and Steffi’s 22). What about Chris Evert? 157 singles titles.

Men vs Women: I saw Chris Evert in an interview once claim that the best female player in the world couldn’t beat an decent college-level male.

I really wish they would do something to get the magic of those old games back. I stopped watching tennis about the time Sampras came along. Watching Ace after Ace gets old after a while, as does watching a booming serve/volley over and over again. Tennis lost the finesse it used to have. Watching Lendl and McEnroe play against each other used to be just phenomenal. Something was lost along the way to the modern game.