Greatest Career Achievement

Tennis Fans. What for you is the Greatest Career Achievement?? Only one vote. Muahahahaha

You've misspelled Graf

I've gone with Borg.

Good poll LK. One thing though, Borg's FOs were not consecutive, the first two and the last four were but there was a two-year hiatus, once when he did not play. Arguably his 3 consecutive FO-Wimbledon doubles was his most impressive achievement.

Positively 4th Street wrote:Good poll LK. One thing though, Borg's FOs were not consecutive, the first two and the last four were but there was a two-year hiatus, once when he did not play. Arguably his 3 consecutive FO-Wimbledon doubles was his most impressive achievement.

Agreed - Borg won in 1974-5, his bogeyman Panatta beat him in 1973 and in 1976, he did not play in 1977, and he won again in 1978-1981.

It's got to be the 5s and 5 in a row from Fed. I don't think that will be beaten anytime soon.

Once can always win 16 slams. Without Djoko, Nadal might have 12 already and going. Guys who are considerably physically stronger than the field like Borg and Nadal can string those slams pretty easily.

Winning 5 on the trott is simply amazing. doing it on 2 slams is out of this world.

Tenez wrote:
Winning 5 on the trott is simply amazing. doing it on 2 slams is out of this world.

That was my view - I think his other open era slam records of 30 consecutive QF's, 23 consecutive SF's, and 10 consecutive F's are just other worldly. What makes them stand out is that the next closest are less than half that in every single category, whilst Borg got close to the 5 and 5 with 4 RG's in a row and 5 Wimbledon's in a row.

Dang I have lost my editing powers. I do apologise for the bad spelling and misplaced tennis fact on Borg.

Some very nice choices. I am still undecided. What makes this an interesting debate is the factors in each achievement.

My vote would change every time!!

I lean to Steffi, and then Martina and then Federer. Grrrrr

Another achievement we coudl add. Number of continious weeks at number 1. There Federer is again considerably ahead of everybody else.

Winning 24 finals in a row. That's never going to be beaten either.

See there are just so many fantastic stats out there. Navratilova won 74 consecutive matches. The achievements are almost endless.

I'll be pathetically biased...For me it's Nole's winning this year's Wimbledon. His background and the path he has had to cover to achieve it make it very special.

Other than that, very hard to chose only one form the list, all those achievements are very, very special.

noleisthebest wrote:I'll be pathetically biased...For me it's Nole's winning his year's Wimbledon. His background and the path he has had to cover to achieve it make it very special.

I know he's said it to the British press who like to hear that sort of thing, but do you think in his heart of hearts that Wimbledon is the ONE for him?

barrystar wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I'll be pathetically biased...For me it's Nole's winning his year's Wimbledon. His background and the path he has had to cover to achieve it make it very special.

I know he's said it to the British press who like to hear that sort of thing, but do you think in his heart of hearts that Wimbledon is the ONE for him?

Positive. Rest assured.

For me, it's a toss up between Borg's five Wimbledons in five years enmeshed with six French Opens in eight, or Laver's twin calendar Grand Slams as both an amateur and professional. Federer's twin re-re-re-repeats at Wimbledon and the US Open a close third.

In the end, I've gone for Borg's, and I'll try to explain why. First off, after 1980, it took twenty-eight years for anyone to repeat his French Open-Wimbledon double. In order to break that run, it took a player as great as Nadal. Needless to say, then, completing a single French Open-Wimbledon double is incredibly tough - but Borg managed it three times.

More to the point (and this is probably the clincher, for me), Borg did it when the time between the two tournaments was less than it currently is, and when there was a huge difference between how the two surfaces played. Clay court tennis and grass court tennis really were like two different sports back then. Nadal and Federer's summer doubles have been fantastic, of course, but they don't impress me as much as Borg's - and to stress again, he did it three times.

I'd say that in general, he was against better opposition than Federer was at both Wimbledon and the US Open between 2003 and 2006. What Laver did in completing the calendar slam was fantastic, but I'd say the standard in comparitive terms in the last sixties can't match the late seventies / early eighties, and three of the four Slams were on grass, too. Truth be told, Nadal winning Slams on three surfaces in a calendar year in 2010 is arguably just as great.

So it's Borg, for me. Laver and Federer not far behind.

I plumped for Graf.

After much consideration I thought of certain factors. When you say it. A feat achieved by no other player in modern game. Some will argue what is a Gold in the Olympics, but I just think in light of all the cases presented before I think it is something that will never be replicated, ever. She defeated Navratilova and Evert in the same year in Finals and I think that year she was 75-2. I think the competition was fierce and I think only being 19 at the time and also winning Bronze in the doubles too. Quite phenominal in the context of things.

Federer's 5 Wimbledons and 5 US Opens a close 2nd

Borg's feat a 3rd place.

Agree with earlier posters that would have liked to have seen Fed's GS consecutive S-Fs in the list (was it 23?) You gotta be fit to do it and you gotta be good to do it.
This shouldn't be about Fed alone, but his 237 weeks at number one - holding off a rampant Rafa for part of the time - was pretty amazing. Winning three GS finals in one year three times was no mean feat, either.
Not so sure the Borg French/Wimby doubles are up there with other achievements. Yes, difficult to do, particularly when SW19 was so much faster . Also, they were the only GS slams he - admittedly a great player - won.

Don Budge has six consecutive slams in 1937-38, which is perhaps better than Laver's two CYGSs.

Graf's Calendar Golden Career Grand Slam.

Reckon the Golden slam is one record that Graf will keep for ever. Did she not win EVERY slam at least four times? That's unbelievable, too. Think I'm right in saying that no male in Open era has won each of the slams at least TWICE, although Fed is "only" an RG short of it.

Have to confess, I totally forgot about Graf's incredible 1988 somehow. I'll put it equal first with Borg. So, the new order...

1a) Borg's five Wimbledons in five years enmeshed with six French Opens in eight, including the double three times

1b) Graf's 'Golden Grand Slam' in 1988 (can't split them)

3) Laver's twin Grand Slams as an amateur and then professional

4) Federer's re-re-re-repeats at both Wimbledon and the French Open

5) Federer's sixteen Slams

and there was me thinking I was merely being impartial by not voting for Graf

Maybe I should've after all...

I don't think it's quite fair to compare WTA and ATP achievements....yet.

Tenez wrote:I don't think it's quite fair to compare WTA and ATP achievements....yet.

honest question: why not?

I was tempted to go for Graf, my favourite ever female player - but I have, somewhat predictably I guess gone for TMF because of the 5 consecutive titles at two different slams. Even more impressive because he drew the short straw for several USOs and was given the cursed second semi final.

Navratilova's 344 titles just amazing, but I have voted purely on singles achievement and while hers is just tremendous, I feel that the women's game has often thrown up a very dominant player for a decade or so - so leaned towards the fact that historically it is so much rarer to dominate in the men's game.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Tenez wrote:I don't think it's quite fair to compare WTA and ATP achievements....yet.

honest question: why not?

Simply not the same level of competition. You can tell by the amazing discrepancies between the WTA and ATP records. It woudl be like comparing Sampras's 7 Wimbies with the 7 of Renshaw over a century ago. Well not as bad of course but that's the idea.

I've gone for The Nav Rat.

If that number is correct, then as a stand alone achievement, it is incredible.

A lot of top ten players don't winn 344 matches in their entire career; to win 344 titles is just ridiculous.

I think the best Federer achievement is the 18 out of 19 slam finals from W 05 to AUS 10. That is just an amazing display of consistency and brilliance.

emancipator tis is true

She won 167 Singles Titles and 177 Doubles Titles.

Quite a sensational record.

That's awesome.

She played everyone from BJK to Monica Seles.

sirfredperry wrote:Reckon the Golden slam is one record that Graf will keep for ever. Did she not win EVERY slam at least four times? That's unbelievable, too. Think I'm right in saying that no male in Open era has won each of the slams at least TWICE, although Fed is "only" an RG short of it.

Winning each slam 4 times at least was very impressive by Graf.

The Navratilova stats are quite scary

Reached 11 consecutive GS Finals
Only player to have won 8 different tournaments at least 7 times
19 consecutive GS Semi Finals

i voted for graf's 1988 year, so hard to win a golden slam in your career but in a year is incredible also she was only 19 in 1988

From Jun 2003 to Dec 2007 Roger Federer won 12 out of the 18 slams tournaments available to him (a 66.6% success rate) plus 4 out of the 5 World Tour Finals (an 80 % success rate). Considering this was done in the otherwise ultra-competitive modern men's game, that to me represents the greatest career achievement of those that were listed.

Really hard call here, just an individual perspective, with alot of interesting views and points - my vote goes to Navratilova, body of work, being the overall statistic.

Not only 344 titles in Singles and Doubles, but another 11 in Mixed - 10 Majors and the inaugural Lipton in 1985 (now Ericsson Open in Miami - with Mayotte!). That's 355 titles, next place in 2nd is BJK with 168 - some 187 titles behind!

Her 1982 - 1986 records of winning 54 of 60 tournaments, 254 of 260 matches, including 86 - 1 in 1983, are the "best" numbers the women's game has to offer (this is not discounting the "Golden Slam" of Graf, in which her one year, stands Supreme and probably will do so for all time - well, Dec 31st, 2012 anyway!!).

30 Major titles in those 5 years alone. And her final Major title coming 32 years after her first (1974 French Mixed to 2006 US Open Mixed).

Add to this, the doubles stats - and it becomes almost ridiculous - the plethora of partners in both Doubles events in Majors; 8 Doubles partners for 11 Majors, aside from Shriver. 10 Mixed Majors with 8 partners. With whomever, she excelled supremely.

We won't ever see anything like this ever, ever again.

yloponom68 wrote:including 86 - 1 in 1983

.

Apologies 86Monopoly, 1940 Alice Marble 83-0 is the best individual 'womens' season. (Source - Bud Collin's Authoritative Tennis Encyclopedia, Second Edition, page 67)

Rest of the Navaratilova numbers are impressive, though.



Very interesting to note that the quantitative measurements are the yardstick throughout this thread.

LF

It is rather quantitative, but also qualititative based on the opinions some people have given stating the quality of the opposition and also of the player with the achievement.

For me what goes un-noticed is Rosewall's achievement. Granted yes most of it was in the days of amateurs, but from 1952 to 1977 he was in the top 20 which is no easy feat as for 8 of the years was in the Open Era and when age was not on his side too.

Rosewall was remarkable. Well remember his epic against Cliff Richey at Wimbledon around 71. Also came back to defeat two former champs - Newcombe and Stan Smith - in 74 at SW19 before being destroyed by a rampant young Connors.
But doubt whether we could ever see a Rosewall or a Connors being able to play into their late 30s, given the physical and non-stop nature of the tour these days.

sirfredperry wrote:Rosewall was remarkable. Well remember his epic against Cliff Richey at Wimbledon around 71. Also came back to defeat two former champs - Newcombe and Stan Smith - in 74 at SW19 before being destroyed by a rampant young Connors.
But doubt whether we could ever see a Rosewall or a Connors being able to play into their late 30s, given the physical and non-stop nature of the tour these days.

Thanks for that SirFred.

It is great to have a poster who can recall some of Rosewall's matches. I have only seen highlights and it is good to hear accounts of some of his matches and positioning with in the game too.

I've opted for Rod Laver's achievement. Will it ever be achieved again? Perhaps but not twice by the same player I don't think.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I've opted for Rod Laver's achievement. Will it ever be achieved again? Perhaps but not twice by the same player I don't think.

Quite agree with that Craig. I have always held that opinion too.

legendkillar wrote:LF

It is rather quantitative, but also qualititative based on the opinions some people have given stating the quality of the opposition and also of the player with the achievement.

For me what goes un-noticed is Rosewall's achievement. Granted yes most of it was in the days of amateurs, but from 1952 to 1977 he was in the top 20 which is no easy feat as for 8 of the years was in the Open Era and when age was not on his side too.

Yes but how many players could make a living out of playing tennis then? 20? I believe not even that.

Navrailova for me. Though I don't have any time for womens tennis she was an amazing player and competitor. You can see she still longs to get it on with one of those blond Rusiian lovelies even now.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:LF

It is rather quantitative, but also qualititative based on the opinions some people have given stating the quality of the opposition and also of the player with the achievement.

For me what goes un-noticed is Rosewall's achievement. Granted yes most of it was in the days of amateurs, but from 1952 to 1977 he was in the top 20 which is no easy feat as for 8 of the years was in the Open Era and when age was not on his side too.

Yes but how many players could make a living out of playing tennis then? 20? I believe not even that.

Considering that rankings came in with the Open Era, whether players could make a living or not does not hold a lot of relevance to the achievement itself. The guy was in his 30's when tennis became professional and the fact he was still competing at the highest level with the likes of Connors/Nastase/Smith is a testament to itself.

Rosewall was a great player but being in the top 20 for 20 years was probably not that special back then. I am sure most great players then were close to that stretch.

Calling an era "open" doesn't make it much more or much less professional than the years before and the years after. Especially since we had "professional players" before the open era.

As the game was only just branching out to new levels, I don't think anything of historical value was ever given the credit it deserved. Not sure even the Laver Slam registered much on the sporting scale. Take the days of Perry and Budge who didn't rack up as many career matches as the modern player does nowadays.

For me it is quite an achievement as with time going on, it becomes more appreciated because of the fact that people haven't come close to matching it.

I think Sampras spent 12 years in the top 20? Federer coming onto 10 years? I think Roddick had nearly hit 10. They are worthy mentions too.

Glad somebody mentioned Roddick. OK, his ranking has slipped somewhat this year, but for around eight or nine years I think he only had a handful of weeks outside the top 10. Incredible achievement. Also, the state of the courts/balls have done nothing to help Roddick. Interesting to see what he might have achieved if had come on the scene 10 years earlier. Compare, if you will, the balls/courts scenario for Roddick and then for Rafa. Now what if Rafa had come on the scene 10 years earlier?

To be able to list such records to choose from, in itself, is a great achievement for a sport like Tennis.

Rosewall had Laver to contend with, perhaps Roddick had Federer.

Possibly but for Federer, Roddick would have won three or four slams or may be more. He always seemed to get in Fed's half of the draw. His 09 Wimbledon loss - unluckiest GS final defeat ever?

Laverfan - thanks for pointing out that Marble stat, am very glad as I like to get the right info. As far ago as that was, and maybe not quite the same level of achievement in terms of competition and pressure, it IS 83-0 and deserved of memory so thanks.

Sir Fred Perry - yeah your comment about Roddick and that SW19 final of 2009 is MY "wish I could change it match!"

Big a fan as I was of Navratilova, Edberg and their close matches had my heart in arthymia (sp?), that was the most gutted, shattered I ever felt after a match. 8-8, 15-40 will never escape my memory. Not to lose serve v Fed in 5 sets, till the last game, and to have broken it multiple times, AND LOSE - just seems so cruel.

Reckon it was the new roof that defeated Roddick in that epic versus Fed. Different roof lay out meant sun shining straight down the court as Andy R served in that final game. Just watch the reruns of that last game. He balloons a couple of balls including the final point (has that ball ever come back down to earth). Must have had difficulty focusing through the glare.

yloponom68 wrote:8-8, 15-40 will never escape my memory.

Federer also got close a couple of times at 15-30 as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUoZR_lX5uI

Ivanisevic actually commented after the match saying it would take at least 5 years for Roddick to get over that defeat. Here we are 2 years later and Roddick on the slide. Makes you wonder that despite Goran being 'crazy' sometimes, he certainly can make some thought provoking observations.