[kbountra]

(Original post by TopHat)
Federer is probably mildly better on clay courts at the moment than Djokovic, even if Djo did beat him at the French, just based on the smaller clay tournaments. In all honesty, the distance between Djo, Fed and Fer on clay is absolutely minute, though. I could even see an argument for putting Ferrer second. It genuinely shocks me hasn't won Roland Garros yet - it's a testament to Nadal's consistency on clay.

EDIT: I wouldn't say Federer is a top 5 clay court player of all time. Borg, Rafa, Lendl, Connors, Wilanders is how I'd see my top 5 clay courters, and I'm not even that great with pre-Borg, so someone is probably going to tell me I should replace one of them with Rosewall or something.

I wouldn't put Federer in the top 5 clay courters of all time either- the names you've listed above (excluding Connors who never won the French) were better. I'd add Kuerten in there too who was brilliant.

[manchesterunited15]

(Original post by TheMagicMan)
I'm not one of the neggers as you have a good point, but don't you kind of enjoy the epic semi and finals that we get at the moment? There's still room for stories earlier in the week, like isner-mahut and rosol, but at the business end of the tournament, I want to see the best players. Also throughout the year the best players play the most, so they need the rest earlier in grand slams


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

I guess, but it works in the FA Cup in football. You get big teams like Liverpool and Man United playing in the 3rd round, then you still get an exciting final of Chelsea and Liverpool.
It would mean that yes, there's a chance of 1 or 2 of the big 4 not reaching the quarters or semis, but the final would still almost certainly have at least 1 of them in and it would be amazing to see a lower ranked player reach the final and have to play the game of their life to win, and it would probably mean so much more to them.

[TopHat]

(Original post by kbountra)
I wouldn't put Federer in the top 5 clay courters of all time either- the names you've listed above (excluding Connors who never won the French) were better. I'd add Kuerten in there too who was brilliant.

You know why, right? He was banned from participating in the French during his prime years. He eventually entered, but that was long after his glory days. If you look at how he did at clay tournaments, and the old recordings, guy was boss.

[kbountra]

(Original post by manchesterunited15)
I don't see why there should be seedings at all really, they should just do a random draw. Why should a lower player have to play someone like Nadal in the first round while Federer gets to avoid the other big players? It would make it more interesting because at the moment you can guarantee that at least 2, if not 3 of the big four will be in the semis.

EDIT: Negging me but with no reasons? Okay.

It's an interesting idea and I think it would be cool to have at least one tournament in the year where the draw is entirely random. However, doing it this way would cause there to be a massive disparity in the rankings. I also think seedings act as an incentive for players to reach the top 32 in the world, and not facing each other early in tournaments should be their reward for being that good. The current format also makes for better audience viewing- matches tend to get more competitive and exciting as a tournament progresses.

[TopHat]

Sometimes I wish tennis was more like DBZ and we could just compare power-levels.

[kbountra]

(Original post by TopHat)
You know why, right? He was banned from participating in the French during his prime years. He eventually entered, but that was long after his glory days. If you look at how he did at clay tournaments, and the old recordings, guy was boss.

I don't think that justifies Connors being considered among the greatest on clay. The fact he didn't win the French kind of removes him from that equation. Connors was more renowned for his ability on hard courts and carpet anyway- I'd imagine the proportion of titles he won on clay would be minimal in comparison.

[TheMagicMan]

(Original post by manchesterunited15)
I guess, but it works in the FA Cup in football. You get big teams like Liverpool and Man United playing in the 3rd round, then you still get an exciting final of Chelsea and Liverpool.
It would mean that yes, there's a chance of 1 or 2 of the big 4 not reaching the quarters or semis, but the final would still almost certainly have at least 1 of them in and it would be amazing to see a lower ranked player reach the final and have to play the game of their life to win, and it would probably mean so much more to them.

The fa cup final usually has a mediocre team in it... Think west ham, birmingham etc. Also, the top tennis players will general destroy anyone outside the top 10 except for freak results (like rosol), especially in a final: nadal,fed, djok are something like 120-5 against everybody except each oter this year. This doesn't happen in football where you regularly have competitive matches between top and bottom prem clubs... Look at Wigan at the end of this season

With regards to your last point... When most players reach grand slam finals/ semis and play the big 3 they collapse rather than play the game of their lives....They don't have the big game temperament: even Murray is 1-12 in grand slam final sets


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[TheMagicRat]

I don't think Connors, in general, gets quite enough acclaim these days. Some of his stats are amazing. As for clay, he did win the US Open when it was on clay and he beat Borg in the final.

I agree that Guga should always get mention when going on about the greatest clay courters of all time.

[Hopple]

(Original post by manchesterunited15)
I don't see why there should be seedings at all really, they should just do a random draw. Why should a lower player have to play someone like Nadal in the first round while Federer gets to avoid the other big players? It would make it more interesting because at the moment you can guarantee that at least 2, if not 3 of the big four will be in the semis.

EDIT: Negging me but with no reasons? Okay.

Imagine it the other way round, the four play each other early on probably leaving just one in the semis or even quarters. It kind of works in the women's game, but that's because an 'upset' is more likely anyway (be it due to them being less consistent or having fewer sets to recover true form) - in men's tennis if you'd fancy whoever was left out of Nadal, Novak and Roger to clobber everyone on the way to the title, with Andy a comfortable favourite if he was the one left standing.

There's also got to be some consideration shown to TV ratings, which are going to plummet if some of the most popular/exciting players are knocked out early on.

[wannabeartist89]

(Original post by notnek)
I doubt it very much but I don't have the stats to confirm that.

Professional tennis has never seen a top 4 dominance like the one we have now.


None of them have been in the top 5 anywhere near to the length of time that Andy's been in the top 5.

Hmm perhaps..just thinking of some more names here..how about Miloslav Mecir?

[notnek]

(Original post by wannabeartist89)
Hmm perhaps..just thinking of some more names here..how about Miloslav Mecir?

He was in the top 5 for less than a year. You can check by searching for the player on the ATP website and then clicking on ranking history.

Remember, Murray's been in the top 5 close to four years. If he never wins a Grand Slam then he'll forever be known as the best player never to win one.

[wannabeartist89]

(Original post by notnek)
He was in the top 5 for less than a year. You can check by searching for the player on the ATP website and then clicking on ranking history.

Remember, Murray's been in the top 5 close to four years. If he never wins a Grand Slam then he'll forever be known as the best player never to win one.

Perhaps. Though if we're talking about both men's and women's tennis, Elena Dementieva could stake a claim to that title.

[notnek]

(Original post by wannabeartist89)
Perhaps. Though if we're talking about both men's and women's tennis, Elena Dementieva could stake a claim to that title.

Caroline Wozniacki could steal the woman's crown if she stays near the top without winning one.

[TopHat]

Just looked at the ATP career index ranking now; it gives 1. Bjorn Borg 2. Roger Federer 3. Rafael Nadal 4. Boris Becker 5. Ivan Lendl 6. Pete Sampras 7. John McEnroe 8. Andre Agassi 9. Andy Murray. So, if you're arguing from a purely statistical analysis a) Murray is indeed the best player never to win a Grand Slam, and b) Bjorn Borg is actually the no.1 player of all time.

EDIT: daaaamn. I didn't realise how crazy Borg's win-loss career ratio looked like until now. That's pretty incredible.

[notnek]

(Original post by TopHat)
Just looked at the ATP career index ranking now; it gives 1. Bjorn Borg 2. Roger Federer 3. Rafael Nadal 4. Boris Becker 5. Ivan Lendl 6. Pete Sampras 7. John McEnroe 8. Andre Agassi 9. Andy Murray. So, if you're arguing from a purely statistical analysis a) Murray is indeed the best player never to win a Grand Slam, and b) Bjorn Borg is actually the no.1 player of all time.

That's the ranking of players against top 10ers I think? The overall career index is given here. Federer's even lower and Murray's still the best player who hasn't won a slam.

I never used to take much notice when people claimed that Borg should be considered the GOAT instead of Federer. But these stats do favour Borg plus he retired early.

[TopHat]

(Original post by notnek)
That's the ranking of players against top 10ers I think? The overall career index is given here. Federer's even lower and Murray's still the best player who hasn't won a slam.

I never used to take much notice when people claimed that Borg should be considered the GOAT instead of Federer. But the stats do favour Borg plus he retired early.

You're correct, it is. I'd just followed the link you'd given earlier, I'd not looked at the title thoroughly enough.

[Sirocco11]

(Original post by wannabeartist89)
Perhaps. Though if we're talking about both men's and women's tennis, Elena Dementieva could stake a claim to that title.

Before Murray came along she was widely considered to have that unfortunate moniker - I was always desperate for her to win one because she was one of my favourites and had so many crushing losses at the finals stages of majors. But I think Murray possibly surpasses her now because of the number of Grand Slam finals he's made as well as semi finals.

[Chief Wiggum]

(Original post by notnek)
I never used to take much notice when people claimed that Borg should be considered the GOAT instead of Federer. But these stats do favour Borg plus he retired early.

Surely win % as a stat to favour Borg is actually enhanced by the fact he retired early, rather than stick around and accumulate more losses as he got older?

[notnek]

(Original post by Chief Wiggum)
Surely win % as a stat to favour Borg is actually enhanced by the fact he retired early, rather than stick around and accumulate more losses as he got older?

Good point.

[TopHat]

You could find out what Federer's were at the same age, I suppose. There's a fairly huge difference between them, though.