Tennis Expert Needed!

As you may be aware we are running a greatest of all time competition across the site and a number of tennis players are included. Therefore we need your help on writing an article for one or two players and their merits to be considered GOAT.

Are any of you up for helping out?

You are opening a can of worms...

2nd that

Absolutely- I'll cover Nadal

In the Open Era, Federer and Nadal are the only two men above 10 slams who have also completed the set of a Career Grand Slam.

Is there a deadline for getting the articles in?

I'd be worried about setting a time limit when Nadal fans are involved. They don't seem to like them.

djlovesyou wrote:Is there a deadline for getting the articles in?

I'd be worried about setting a time limit when Nadal fans are involved. They don't seem to like them.

I'll give you that one

OK. I'll try in <25secs. 18>10!

And 11 is greater than 17 - so case closed!

Sorry Julius that took 32 seconds and is well over the time allowed. You are disqualified.

Please don't try arguing the rule is quite clear.

Disqualifed?! You cannot be serious! Docked a point, maybe.

This was a one hit match therefore the penalty is instant disqualification... and I did say no arguing!

opening a can of worms is the point! lol

if your a big tennis fan with good knowledge it'll be great to have you involved

300+ weeks at #1
17 Slams plus loads of Masters Cups
No single Slam providing even half his total.

All done, nice and easy.

But this is touting Federer as the GOAT across all sports, not just tennis bogbrush.

You probably need to be a bit more persuasive.

Oh all sports?

That's a different thing then. I didn't get that.

It Must Be Love wrote:In the Open Era, Federer and Nadal are the only two men above 10 slams who have also completed the set of a Career Grand Slam.

Why is this restricted to male competitors only?

Female:
Evert
Graf
Navratilova

For me (obvs subjective) it comes down to literally the first name you think of when you say that sport.

Boxing - ali
cricket - bradman
f1 - schumacher
football - pele
rugby - edwards
tennis - feds

First name that springs to mind is not a good way to do it.

Too emotional, no subjectivity, and doesn't make allowances for the fact that it gives contemporary athletes an inherent bias, as they are more likely to be in the news now and you may not have lived to see the stars of yonder.

LuvSports, stop choosing all those contemporary athletes

Well ok, but.. mm, ok, I like this method

isn't all sport contemporary?
or is contemporary (like the historical periods) based on how far the sport goes back to be deemed as contemporary.
Therefore contemporary for football may be messi but not pele?

LuvSports! wrote:isn't all sport contemporary?
or is contemporary (like the historical periods) based on how far the sport goes back to be deemed as contemporary.
Therefore contemporary for football may be messi but not pele?

I think the point Eman is making is that you are too young to remember all the starts of yesteryear and that is why you chose Messi instead of Pele.



...actually.... hang on..... what was I..... nevermind..

i said pele was the best ahead of messi!

That's explains SB's last line

The greatest tennis players of all time in my opinion are Pancho Gonzalez, Roger Federer, Rod Laver, Bill Tilden and Ken Rosewall. But I don't think any of them would be able to walk off with greatest sportsman of all time.

If any of the above have been nominated, I could contribute an article maybe, apart from Federer, for which there was already a volunteer.

For truly impressive GOAT contender, see here:
The more you think about it, the more impressive it is:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/282910.html
It's not so much the gap between Bradman and the next best, but look how close 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th are.

Henman Bill wrote:The greatest tennis players of all time in my opinion are Pancho Gonzalez, Roger Federer, Rod Laver, Bill Tilden and Ken Rosewall. But I don't think any of them would be able to walk off with greatest sportsman of all time.

If any of the above have been nominated, I could contribute an article maybe, apart from Federer, for which there was already a volunteer.

For truly impressive GOAT contender, see here:
The more you think about it, the more impressive it is:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/282910.html
It's not so much the gap between Bradman and the next best, but look how close 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th are.

Ah... our old friend Henman Bill. More naivety on your part.

Anyone who believes that someone who played cricket, purely as a batsman, in the 1930s - when only 2 nations played the sport - is the greatest athlete of all-time, is living in fantasy land.

'The Brad Man' belongs in the Top 64 but only as a symbolic gesture, in acknowledgment of the digits 99.94. The fact is, if The Brad Man played in the modern era, he would only average 45-48 in Tests and 35-40 in ODIs at a strike rate below 75. The best cricketer of all-time is Jacques Kallis and the best batsman in history is Sachin Tendulkar.

Ye Olde statistics mean nothing in a modern context. After all, Wilt Chamberlain's 50.4 ppg average in 1961-62 doesn't earn him much more than a nostalgic tip-off-the-hat, it certainly doesn't draw him into the conversion with the likes of Jordan. No other player has ever even broken the 40 ppg barrier, although Chamberlain himself averaged 44.8 in 1962-63. Wilt's '100-point Game' will never be touched, a statistical feat that defies logic, in fact, 16 of the top 21 single game points totals are possessed by the former Globe Trotter. These stats were posted decades after Bradman's, yet even they are considered too aged to bother dusting off and bringing into the discussion.

The Brad Man Olde Boys are living in the past, just leave the Don there and move on.

The word 'athlete' will be bandied around a lot in this discussion in order to try to belittle sports that are perhaps a touch less physical than the one the person is trying to big up.

Henman Bill wrote:The greatest tennis players of all time in my opinion are Pancho Gonzalez, Roger Federer, Rod Laver, Bill Tilden and Ken Rosewall. But I don't think any of them would be able to walk off with greatest sportsman of all time.

If any of the above have been nominated, I could contribute an article maybe, apart from Federer, for which there was already a volunteer.

For truly impressive GOAT contender, see here:
The more you think about it, the more impressive it is:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/282910.html
It's not so much the gap between Bradman and the next best, but look how close 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th are.

What about Old Hang Dog himself Mr Pete Sampras?

Borg: the most winnig player:

- time at n.1/ total time played ratio

- grand slam played/ won ratio.

Sampras: the most talented player.

Federer: the most trophies won overall.

Nadal: the best player of all time to pick his bum and cheat systematically the rules.

Spaghetti-Hans wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:The greatest tennis players of all time in my opinion are Pancho Gonzalez, Roger Federer, Rod Laver, Bill Tilden and Ken Rosewall. But I don't think any of them would be able to walk off with greatest sportsman of all time.

If any of the above have been nominated, I could contribute an article maybe, apart from Federer, for which there was already a volunteer.

For truly impressive GOAT contender, see here:
The more you think about it, the more impressive it is:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/282910.html
It's not so much the gap between Bradman and the next best, but look how close 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th are.

Ah... our old friend Henman Bill. More naivety on your part.

Anyone who believes that someone who played cricket, purely as a batsman, in the 1930s - when only 2 nations played the sport - is the greatest athlete of all-time, is living in fantasy land.

'The Brad Man' belongs in the Top 64 but only as a symbolic gesture, in acknowledgment of the digits 99.94. The fact is, if The Brad Man played in the modern era, he would only average 45-48 in Tests and 35-40 in ODIs at a strike rate below 75. The best cricketer of all-time is Jacques Kallis and the best batsman in history is Sachin Tendulkar.

Ye Olde statistics mean nothing in a modern context. After all, Wilt Chamberlain's 50.4 ppg average in 1961-62 doesn't earn him much more than a nostalgic tip-off-the-hat, it certainly doesn't draw him into the conversion with the likes of Jordan. No other player has ever even broken the 40 ppg barrier, although Chamberlain himself averaged 44.8 in 1962-63. Wilt's '100-point Game' will never be touched, a statistical feat that defies logic, in fact, 16 of the top 21 single game points totals are possessed by the former Globe Trotter. These stats were posted decades after Bradman's, yet even they are considered too aged to bother dusting off and bringing into the discussion.

The Brad Man Olde Boys are living in the past, just leave the Don there and move on.

Absolute rubbish. Bradmans average wasn't sustained by beating up rubbish like Bangladesh, like happens now, nor did he play on protected pitches. When he played pitches were left uncovered through a Test meaning battting was tougher.

bogbrush wrote:

Spaghetti-Hans wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:The greatest tennis players of all time in my opinion are Pancho Gonzalez, Roger Federer, Rod Laver, Bill Tilden and Ken Rosewall. But I don't think any of them would be able to walk off with greatest sportsman of all time.

If any of the above have been nominated, I could contribute an article maybe, apart from Federer, for which there was already a volunteer.

For truly impressive GOAT contender, see here:
The more you think about it, the more impressive it is:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/282910.html
It's not so much the gap between Bradman and the next best, but look how close 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th are.

Ah... our old friend Henman Bill. More naivety on your part.

Anyone who believes that someone who played cricket, purely as a batsman, in the 1930s - when only 2 nations played the sport - is the greatest athlete of all-time, is living in fantasy land.

'The Brad Man' belongs in the Top 64 but only as a symbolic gesture, in acknowledgment of the digits 99.94. The fact is, if The Brad Man played in the modern era, he would only average 45-48 in Tests and 35-40 in ODIs at a strike rate below 75. The best cricketer of all-time is Jacques Kallis and the best batsman in history is Sachin Tendulkar.

Ye Olde statistics mean nothing in a modern context. After all, Wilt Chamberlain's 50.4 ppg average in 1961-62 doesn't earn him much more than a nostalgic tip-off-the-hat, it certainly doesn't draw him into the conversion with the likes of Jordan. No other player has ever even broken the 40 ppg barrier, although Chamberlain himself averaged 44.8 in 1962-63. Wilt's '100-point Game' will never be touched, a statistical feat that defies logic, in fact, 16 of the top 21 single game points totals are possessed by the former Globe Trotter. These stats were posted decades after Bradman's, yet even they are considered too aged to bother dusting off and bringing into the discussion.

The Brad Man Olde Boys are living in the past, just leave the Don there and move on.

Absolute rubbish. Bradmans average wasn't sustained by beating up rubbish like Bangladesh, like happens now, nor did he play on protected pitches. When he played pitches were left uncovered through a Test meaning battting was tougher.

Yes but to offset this, there wasn't any video technology available back in Bradman's time which allowed for opposition team's to analyse in fine detail the techniques of individual batsmen and hence allowing for a determination of appropriate bowling strategies and field settings in order to maximise the chances of getting out that batsman as is the case nowadays in test cricket. If Sachin Tendulkar had played in Bradman's time I'm sure that his average would be around 85-90 if not the 99 that Bradman eventually ended up at.

Yet the biggest controversy of the game was....... a bowling strategy devised purely to combat Bradman. That was bodyline, when he got peppered to the body with a legside loaded field before any laws existed to limited that type of ball. I think he averaged just 57 against it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodyline

He also faced fast aggressive bowling with no more head protection than the baggy green cap.

Neither did he get to average 136 against Bangladesh or 76 against Zimbabwe.

Bradman is in a league of his own.

bogbrush wrote:Yet the biggest controversy of the game was....... a bowling strategy devised purely to combat Bradman. That was bodyline, when he got peppered to the body with a legside loaded field before any laws existed to limited that type of ball. I think he averaged just 57 against it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodyline

He also faced fast aggressive bowling with no more head protection than the baggy green cap.

Neither did he get to average 136 against Bangladesh or 76 against Zimbabwe.

Bradman is in a league of his own.

Bradman may be in a league of his in terms of statistics/averages, but he never had to face that many genuine very fast bowlers of test match quality other than Harold Larwood. His 57 batting average in that Bodyline series really says it all about the average he would have got at most had his batting been surgically microscopically examined by West Indian speedsters Curtley Ambrose, Courtney Walsh, Malcolm Marshall, Bumper Patterson just like Graeme Hick's batting was done by these same 4 guys when Hick himself made his test debut V West Indies in 1991.

Hick used as a comparator for Bradman? Come on!

Tendulkar has faced neutered fast bowling; the rules having been massively changed since bodyline.
And 57 is still bigger than Tendulkars average, even including his gift runs from 'Test' sides below county level. Neither did ST face most of those bowlers you mention for long.
I think you also overlook the impact of being denied all the protection that current players have, both from rules and equipment. If a bouncer went for Bradmans head it was a seriously dangerous weapon. Not now with helmets and limitations.

If you look at the averages of Bradmans contemporaries they are much like today. It was as hard to get a good average then as it is now, and to get virtually 100 is ridiculous.

bogbrush wrote:Oh dear. Hick used as a comparator for Bradman?

Tendulkar has faced neutered fast bowling; the rules having been massively changed since bodyline.
And 57 is still bigger than Tendulkars average, even including his gift runs from 'Test' sides below county level. Neither did ST face most of those bowlers you mention for long.

If you look at the averages of Bradmans contemporaries they are much like today. It was as hard to get a good average then as it is now, and to get virtually 100 is ridiculous.

Well like I said most of the reason that Bradman got that 100 average is because he didn't have to face any high class genuine fast bowlers apart from Harold Larwood. If England had 2 or 3 Larwoods in 1930 just like the Windies had 3 high class speedsters in 1984 to 1986, would Bradman have scored those large number of runs in that single ashes series, I somewhat doubt it. Also another factor that no considered is that Australia actually had a very good bowling attack during most of Bradman's test career which meant that the quality opposition batsmen facing Australia such as Wally Hammond, Herbert Sutcliffe, Len Hutton never scored as freely and as much as Bradman did.

The trouble with Sampras is that he is definately a lesser player than Federer. He achieved less and Federer beat almost all his major records. So Sampras cannot be the number one tennis player, so he cannot be the number one sportsman at all, so why even offer him up.

Whereas you cannot make such a clear case for Federer achieving more than Tilden, Rosewall, Laver, Gonzalez. It is more subjective.

Of course you could argue that that's just because it's harder to compare against players from decades before, but I think if you look at the % of major tournaments won, Sampras is probably a lot lower than most or all of the above players.

bogbrush wrote:Yet the biggest controversy of the game was....... a bowling strategy devised purely to combat Bradman. That was bodyline, when he got peppered to the body with a legside loaded field before any laws existed to limited that type of ball. I think he averaged just 57 against it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodyline

He also faced fast aggressive bowling with no more head protection than the baggy green cap.

Neither did he get to average 136 against Bangladesh or 76 against Zimbabwe.

Bradman is in a league of his own.

The current Bangladesh side and Zimbabwe circa 1999 are/were both better sides than England in the 1930s - the only legitimate side Bradman ever faced.

The sport has evolved, it's tougher, more intense, high stakes, higher pressure. We notice how you conveniently ignored our Wilt Chamberlain analogy.

How about Joe Davis' 15 World Snooker Titles between 1927-46. That's a tally 114% greater than the modern record of 7 Titles held by Stephen Hendry - a far greater statistical anomaly than Bradman's 99.94, which is mere 64% higher than the next best figure. Of course, no body - apart from you and Henman Bill - believes that Joe Davis is a better player than Stephen Hendry or Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Let us guess.... You must think William Renshaw is a better player than Andre Agassi?

Why can't you fools think for yourselves? I certainly hope you haven't been given the job of doing the Federer article - if I'd known you might me, I might have taken it myself.

I gratefully declined as I knew there were far bigger Federer fans on the board than me, but I was offered the opportunity.

gboycottnut wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Oh dear. Hick used as a comparator for Bradman?

Tendulkar has faced neutered fast bowling; the rules having been massively changed since bodyline.
And 57 is still bigger than Tendulkars average, even including his gift runs from 'Test' sides below county level. Neither did ST face most of those bowlers you mention for long.

If you look at the averages of Bradmans contemporaries they are much like today. It was as hard to get a good average then as it is now, and to get virtually 100 is ridiculous.

Well like I said most of the reason that Bradman got that 100 average is because he didn't have to face any high class genuine fast bowlers apart from Harold Larwood. If England had 2 or 3 Larwoods in 1930 just like the Windies had 3 high class speedsters in 1984 to 1986, would Bradman have scored those large number of runs in that single ashes series, I somewhat doubt it. Also another factor that no considered is that Australia actually had a very good bowling attack during most of Bradman's test career which meant that the quality opposition batsmen facing Australia such as Wally Hammond, Herbert Sutcliffe, Len Hutton never scored as freely and as much as Bradman did.

So Viv Richards is overrated too?

Dear me, the ridiculous contortions one will go to support their position. You've not touched on (1) uncovered pitches, (2) no helmets, (3) no rules to limit non stop bouncing (4) no garbage opposition like Tendulkar has faced. But I don't expect those to be anywhere but swept under the carpet.

And of course Sachin never faced that Windies attack either.

Spaghetti-Hans wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Yet the biggest controversy of the game was....... a bowling strategy devised purely to combat Bradman. That was bodyline, when he got peppered to the body with a legside loaded field before any laws existed to limited that type of ball. I think he averaged just 57 against it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodyline

He also faced fast aggressive bowling with no more head protection than the baggy green cap.

Neither did he get to average 136 against Bangladesh or 76 against Zimbabwe.

Bradman is in a league of his own.

The current Bangladesh side and Zimbabwe circa 1999 are/were both better sides than England in the 1930s - the only legitimate side Bradman ever faced.

The sport has evolved, it's tougher, more intense, high stakes, higher pressure. We notice how you conveniently ignored our Wilt Chamberlain analogy.

How about Joe Davis' 15 World Snooker Titles between 1927-46. That's a tally 114% greater than the modern record of 7 Titles held by Stephen Hendry - a far greater statistical anomaly than Bradman's 99.94, which is mere 64% higher than the next best figure. Of course, no body - apart from you and Henman Bill - believes that Joe Davis is a better player than Stephen Hendry or Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Let us guess.... You must think William Renshaw is a better player than Andre Agassi?

Oh ok, trolling.

Good luck.

Bopara > Bradman

bogbrush wrote:

Spaghetti-Hans wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Yet the biggest controversy of the game was....... a bowling strategy devised purely to combat Bradman. That was bodyline, when he got peppered to the body with a legside loaded field before any laws existed to limited that type of ball. I think he averaged just 57 against it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodyline

He also faced fast aggressive bowling with no more head protection than the baggy green cap.

Neither did he get to average 136 against Bangladesh or 76 against Zimbabwe.

Bradman is in a league of his own.

The current Bangladesh side and Zimbabwe circa 1999 are/were both better sides than England in the 1930s - the only legitimate side Bradman ever faced.

The sport has evolved, it's tougher, more intense, high stakes, higher pressure. We notice how you conveniently ignored our Wilt Chamberlain analogy.

How about Joe Davis' 15 World Snooker Titles between 1927-46. That's a tally 114% greater than the modern record of 7 Titles held by Stephen Hendry - a far greater statistical anomaly than Bradman's 99.94, which is mere 64% higher than the next best figure. Of course, no body - apart from you and Henman Bill - believes that Joe Davis is a better player than Stephen Hendry or Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Let us guess.... You must think William Renshaw is a better player than Andre Agassi?

Ok, exposed as trolling.

Good luck.

Henry Olonga, Heath Streak and the Flower Boyz would have walked into the England team of the 1930s - bigger, faster, stronger. The England side that Bradman faced didn't have any batsman as talented as Tamim Iqbal or Mohammad Ashraful.

No need to be intimidated by our reputation. Just answer the question....

Is William Renshaw a better player than Andre Agassi?

It Must Be Love wrote:Bopara > Bradman

uuuuhhhh excuse me monty panesar is the best player of all time.

one time i was at lords and he went to hit a sweep and it hit the bat twice and went on the off side and he didn't even look where it went. #class #oneofakind #nobodyelsecandothat

skadoosh!

LS is right.

It Must Be Love wrote:LS is right.

LS must be right as not even Bradman could do this unique shot of Panesar's !

Bradman was ridiculous though. It wasn't as though everyone back then was averaging 70, it really was a league of it's own, back then and now.
He did indeed only average 57 in the body line series... that's still higher than tendulkar.
I do think that fast bowling is more potent these days true, but the pitches back then were nasty, the spin would go everywhere.
Many still hold Sampras dear for a good reason. He was exceptionally professional, perhaps moreso than anyone, everything went toward his career.
He was never really in the public eye, he never gave much away. He also didnt care too much for fame or endorsement, Nike was probably the big one he had, no shirts with the number of GS's he had (not to my knowledge, correct me if im wrong) or anything like that.

I liked his tennis too, his serve was a lovely action to watch, and he had some good game beyond that, it's just his serve was the trump card. He was an advocate that if you knuckle down and work hard, you'll get reward, that's a great athlete.

I know absolutely nothing about cricket but I know that Bradman is not the best sportsperson of all time. If you can spot the error in the following quote from wikipedia, you will no doubt agree:

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Bradman)

Sir Donald George Bradman, AC (27 August 1908 – 25 February 2001), often referred to as "The Don", was an Australian cricketer, widely acknowledged as the greatest Test batsman of all time. Bradman's career Test batting average of 99.94 is often cited as statistically the greatest achievement by any sportsman in any major sport.

The usually knowledgeable and astute Bogbrush has been defeated by The Main Event Lads.

Bogbrush's failure to address our key points is an unadulterated cry of surrender.

It's understandable. No sane individual could argue that Wilt Chamberlain was better than Michael Jordan, that Don Bradman was better than Sachin Tendulkar or that Willie Renshaw was better than Double A - Andre Agassi.

Don't be too harsh on Bogbrush, he's usually on point with his commentary. He just got out-thought and out-foxed by a few too many good men.