6 thoughts on “The 100 Greatest Tennis Players of All-Time”

1. 

   I think you have Jaroslav Drobny twice in your top 100 and overflow list.

   1. 

      Thanks for the heads up! Drobny on the overflow list was the error.

      1. 

         also Jean Borotra

         1. 

            Same deal. The overflow inclusion is the error. Both were removed. Thanks for looking out, Parker!

2. 

   Can’t really argue with the top of the list. My heart says Federer is GOAT but the numbers are against him. The only argument I can think of is that before Federer, we didn’t know that that sort of dominance was even possible. 8 Grand Slams was sort of the benchmark for greatness, and the record was 14. He blew through that and changed the way we think about greatness in tennis. I tend to give some credit for trail blazing, but it’s still a tough road for Fed.
   I’m not particularly comfortable with the top 3 being from the same era but I think the numbers are unsurmountable. It worries me in the same way that Messi-Ronaldo–Lewa does. It has to be at least possible that the circumstances and environment of the time have lent themselves to domination in a way that they didn’t in previous eras. What is true is that tennis in its current pro form is quite young. Even once the open era began, not all players too all the Slams seriously – Borg famously skipped the Australian, others gave short-shrift to the French. And of course without the modern focus on conditioning and medical support, careers tended to be shorter.
   Laver seems to be the one for whom an argument can be made given his Slam as an Amateur and then in the Open era. He was also dominant as a pro once he settled in so it’s tempting to say he’d have won 2-4 Slams a year from 1963-1967. Problem is, when he first came on Tour in 1963, Rosewell had his number. So it’s very likely Rosewell was also supperior in 1962. With the other great pros around in the early 60s, including Gonzalez Hoad I think it quite likely that had the Open era begun 10 years earlier, Laver may not have won a Slam until 1964. Even with domination for a few years after that, it’s hard to get past 15-20 majors which leaves him short of the Big 3.
   I think you’ve done a nice job integrating the pros of the pre-Open era, especially given how different that game was. I do wonder if Lew Hoad is a bit low. Some experts still talk about him as a greatest and Gonzalez said he was the only guy who could match his top level.
   One final thought. I think the guys that came before Federer played in a particularly tough era. Sampras, Agassi and co played in a fully developed Open game, but in one where there were true specialists which made dominating on all surfaces challenging. To win the French you’d have get past a slew of Argentines and Spaniards that would focus on only on clay, and then you’d have to go to Wimbledon and face Goran serving at 145mph.
   Fed and the gang eventually put paid to specialists with their all around prowess, but the conditions helped too. The grass at Wimbledon, for example, became far slower and the bounce more even so that baseliners could compete for the first time.

   1. 

      Hey Stirlo, fantastic stuff! I’m the same on Fed. My heart is there, and it was a sad moment for me when the ammunition to defend his spot as the GOAT ran out. I like your line of thinking on Fed being the first to show that level of dominance. I also think there’s something to the idea that Fed’s peak run was the top run ever. Ranking the pre-open era is a slog. It took longer than any other list, and it wasn’t by a small margin. The point you brought up about Hoad is a good example why. For every good thing Gonzalez said about Hoad, Kramer said the same thing about Vines, and Vines said the same about Budge, and so on and so on. I agree on caution being warranted with Laver. It’s easy to assume he would’ve won several majors, but I don’t think that’s a sure thing. Very good point on the specialization of the surfaces in the 80s.