Top 10 Prior to 2002

I was thinking back to the days of growing up with tennis and who was the greatest player prior to the modern era.

This is a list of 10 players i have put together.
Ive made it a mixed choice as each person is deserving of their place in the top 10 based on their achievements in the game.
Who was your favourite out of these and why?
Is there anyone else that should of been included?

Stephan Edberg, arguably better than Becker, but that is my opinion.

6 slams (no french though) + 2 slam doubles
1 WTF
Bronze Olympic singles and Bronze doubles

Liked Borg out of all of them, for many reasons, style of play, temperament, skills and his passing shots.

"Stephan Edberg, arguably better than Becker, but that is my opinion."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yeah, I was looking for him in the list, too. Didn't know much about tennis back then, but for some reason he was my favourite player...

So, in the absence of Edberg, I vote for Agassi.

Did I just click on Connors by mistake?!

And it looks like I can't change it... Another

ive amended the poll, you should be able to change votes

How?

click cancel vote, then choose again

Forget I asked!

It looks like I had voted for Agassi!

But this "cancel vote" will probably be useful in the future. Thanks!

i voted for connors - just always liked the guy.

He always seem to give his all and never gave up - he always seemed to be in 5 set classics.

He also always look out on his feet - exactly the same as when i play tennis (although I usually am)

Big Jimmy Connors fan, he was so good for so long, playing his last grandslam final at 39. One of the fiercest competitors who gave it his all every single match. The first great match I remember was connors v. mac in 83 US open when I was 7. He could be a real jerk, but that was jimmy going into a five set match with Jimmy especially at the OPen was a battle physically, technically, and mentally.

I haven't followed the tennis over the years like most of you have but I used to take notice of Agassi and liked watching him play so he gets my vote : )

Solerina

Borg for me as he was the one that first turned me on to tennis. I loved the fact that he was so cool during the match and then all the emotion came pouring out when he won.

Don't think you can vote for a 2nd player but on the ladies side my favourite was Chris Evert. She was always a lady on court and I distinctly remember wanting to be her

Borg.. the ice man. He was compulsive viewing for me. The first to display the mental strength that Rafa now has. I admired that so much in him. Pitched against the firey temperaments of both Connors and McEnroe he was unique.
He commanded such respect from other players and the public alike. A gentleman on court (his personal life was a different matter...) Interesting to note that McEnroe never had a tantrum when he played him.
Chris Evert yes but Yvonne Goolagong Cawley was a "doll" these two were so femine in stark contrast to Navaratalova. Loved Billy Jean also.
But I could name a string of them that were very special to me.

Aw, Yvonne Goolagong. She was a sweetheart wasn't she

There's no button for John 'the king' Lloyd here, so i'm not picking.

THIS_IS_THE_NEWS wrote:There's no button for John 'the king' Lloyd here, so i'm not picking.

:




: Good Lord how could I have forgotten Mr Evert tsk tsk

Jubbahey wrote:Stephan Edberg, arguably better than Becker, but that is my opinion.

6 slams (no french though) + 2 slam doubles
1 WTF
Bronze Olympic singles and Bronze doubles

Liked Borg out of all of them, for many reasons, style of play, temperament, skills and his passing shots.

I knew Edberg was a gent, but only 1 sweary phrase in his career? An astonishing achievement!

Although not a big fan of the woman's game in the least. I have to say my favorite player was Steffi Graf. The most dominant, the fittest, and the most powerful. Shame that we haven't had a single woman's champion since that forget about the talent, but who actually cared to the extent Graf,Navritalova, and Everett did. Now they are all more interested in being models and clothing designers.

Bjorn Borg accomplished so much in his career and played with such style that he gets my choice. Winning the Frech Open and Wimbledon back to back on three separate occasions shows the physical and mental toughness of him - as well as his adaptability across surfaces.

Yes Borg is certainly a rare champion, it is interesting he never won the US Open, eventhough for a couple of years it was played on clay. His athleticism and his hearthrob good lucks certainly did a lot to expand the game's popularity pushing purses ever and ever higher.

I haven't been watching tennis that long, so out of that list Steffi Graf takes it for me. Wonderful player, her ability to win on all surfaces puts her above Sampras (who I'd rate the best male player I watched from that list).

Steffi gets my vote. It was tough to choose between her and Agassi as I loved watching both growing up, but she did a huge amount for the women's game. There's not really been a player like her since, she was just fab

I voted for Johnny Mac - A great player and the 1st "Super Brat"

I just don't think you can compare women's tour to the men's tour. Especially, now when it seems that very few women on tour have the same kind of dedication to the sport and winning that Graf, Navaratilova, and Everett did. Half of the good ones retire and comeback after long hiatuses and the williams sisters don't even play a full schedule and are the best players on tour, a very sad state for the game.

socal can I put you right her name was Evert..

ُSure no problem Haddie, I tend to make a lot of typos because I type very fast and don't like editting. Anyway, your man is starting his clay court swing, should be a happy time of the year for you.

Yes it is exciting for me socal.. I always love to see him where he is most comfortable... like he has "come home" so to speak. But I love the clay court swing anyway... as I think I have mentioned before I am a fan of all the Spanish players as you would expect ... their natural habitat. Still I take nothing for granted there are so many newbies coming long who are still cutting their teeth and may find that clay too is to their liking. Rafa cannot afford to be complacent but Im sure he knows that there are no guarantees.

Haddie, I think Nadal makes a mistake in scheduling by not skipping Dubai and just going to South America. That is five weeks less of hardcourt tennis that has to be worth more than money the sheiks pay him for an appearance fee. And it would be like an automatic 3 titles a year.

I wouldn´t argue with that but I would like to know his REAL reasons for doing it socal.. I would be most surprised if he would put himself under that pressure purely for the money. I think he, like Roger, have investments there and whether there is something in it for his foundation ?????

:huh: But whatever I do agree with you

socal1976 wrote:Haddie, I think Nadal makes a mistake in scheduling by not skipping Dubai and just going to South America. That is five weeks less of hardcourt tennis that has to be worth more than money the sheiks pay him for an appearance fee. And it would be like an automatic 3 titles a year.

Rankings point wise it would be utterly irrelevant though; the Dubai tournament is an ATP500, all 3 of the S. American clay tournaments are ATP250's, of which he already attends 2 on a seemingly annual basis; Doha at the year start and Queens prior to Wimbledon; any more other than the odd warm up is just going to add to his schedule, clay court or not.

It may be nice as a one off, and I daresay as he gets into the twilight of his career he may well require such tournaments to prop his ranking up, but for now he may as well attend an ATP500 early so he only has to do 2 more and Monte Carlo later in the year, otherwise he risks knackering himself out over the Asian swing at the end of the year in order to avoid penalties.

TITN

What do you believe his reasons for playing there are... ??
Do you believe its purely financial ?? Like you say its an ATP500 tournament
and makes little or no difference to his ranking...I would be interested to hear your opinion.



:

Sorry YI man this has all gone "off topic" should be taking this up elsewhere :run1:

TITN, Acapulco is a 500 ATP pointer just like Dubai, but with less prize money. Also I am not saying that he plays Chile right after AO. Just play Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico. Or alternately play Brazil and Mexico. The crucial thing for me is not the money or the points. Points, wise I think he would do better and most importantly I think he saves his knees for the most important part of the season.

TITN, you are the resident point system expert. How many 500s and 250s count in the rankings over the course of a season anyway?

socal1976 wrote:TITN, you are the resident point system expert. How many 500s and 250s count in the rankings over the course of a season anyway?

I think four 500s (Monte-Carlo included) and two 250s... But TITN will know for sure.

But that's only for the players who ended the previous season in Top 30, if I'm not mistaken...

socal1976 wrote:TITN, Acapulco is a 500 ATP pointer just like Dubai, but with less prize money. Also I am not saying that he plays Chile right after AO. Just play Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico. Or alternately play Brazil and Mexico. The crucial thing for me is not the money or the points. Points, wise I think he would do better and most importantly I think he saves his knees for the most important part of the season.

Green is right, hence the problem; Nadal is effectively sticking 2 tournaments onto his schedule for no reason. You raise a fair point regarding Acapulco, but thats fairly useless as a warm up for the 2 masters that follow it.

Dubai is a good warm-up for the 2 hard court masters, and you get a weeks rest after that before you go to Indian Wells. The money, although he may not necessarily need it, is not exactly something I'd turn down, either!

I think his approach is good at the minute; if you start switching from hard to clay to hard then finally back to clay for MC then you've got twice as much adaptation to do, which is just going to be extra hassle and in all probability extra practise! I can see where you are coming from, but ultimately Argentina and Brazil won't 'replace' any tournaments later in the year, so it's just 2 more added to the schedule.

I too would like to apologise to the OP for going off-topic, however I stand by my statement that I refuse to vote untill John Lloyd gets his own button.

TITN

Is this in answer to my question also

Haddie-nuff wrote:TITN

Is this in answer to my question also

Pretty much, yeah! I wouldn't say it's all finance; it is probably the best warm-up tournament for the followings Masters as all the top guys are there, but if money had no factor, why not just go to the US a week before?

Yes I suppose but I cant help thinking that its not just about money for Rafa.. lets face it he has sponsorships coming out of his ears .. he can earn it in more ways than one I know he and Federer (and obviously Djoko now) are treated like kings whilst they are there.. and that I daresay must have some appeal so the words
hay and sunshine come to mind

Rod Laver !!!!

TITN, i think these guys play enough on hardcourt where the switch from clay to hardcourt shouldn't be all that difficult. AT my club in southern CA we have both (the only clay courts around) and it is easy to go from clay to hard, but not the other way around. Plus he could take more time off and have Argentina and Mexico in the schedule. Argentina takes up just one of his 250s, and then he plays the other 250 at Queen's club to gear up for wimby. Of course, Rafa knows better himself what is important.

But he is so good on clay and by skipping Dubai he skips almost an entire month of hardcourt tennis, and isn't his health the most important thing that determines his success into the future?