DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Tennis Channel's 100 Greatest of All Time

**Aswdwdfg** · 03-25-2012, 01:51 PM

While naming and debating the Top 100 is fun, the number of factors make comparisons difficult at best. Comparing across generations is difficult and somewhat subjective. Add comparing across gender which is definitely subjective. Throw in biases and different criteria (# of slams, # of wins etc.) and it's difficult to assess anything.

When I look at Grand Slam victories, 5 women have more than Roger Federer. Margaret Court has 50 % more than him. We might conclude that winning a lot of male Grand Slams is more difficult than winning as a woman. That conclusion may be historical rather than current as in the last 10 years, Roger and Rafa have been winning at a greater pace than the women.

So, in the end, there's a lot of subjectivity. When looking at the list, I try to latch on to similarities. I'm comfortable enough comparing Federer, Nadal, Roddick, Djokovic etc. I can even extend that back to Connors, McEnroe, Borg.

I honestly can't tell you with any convincing argument if Roger Federer is a greater player than Steffi Graf.

Steffi has more slams. Roger has more slams than anyone in his peer group.

They both won on all surfaces.

Most would not argue about whether Roger would have beaten Steffi in a match.

It's tough.

Once you pass them through a few basics then it becomes about how I feel.

I saw Connors, McEnroe, Graf, Navratilova and Seles play. I barely remember Newcombe, Rosewall and Laver from childhood. I have no sense as to what their games were like.

I think the list got all of the top 20 or so right and within that list, we can subdivide but who's greater between the top few players, I don't know. Federer, Graf, Navratilova. One of them would be my choice with a lot still left to write in the Nadal story. I guess I'd pick Federer but it would purely be because I love watching him more than any other player I've ever seen.

I still think Roddick is a underrated at 94. I'd chose his career over a lot of people ahead of him on the list. That's even without the Brooklyn Decker factor.

And of course, Esther Vergeer, would be the runaway pick if given consideration.

Fun to debate, hard to conclude.

03-25-2012, 01:51 PM	#29
Aswdwdfg Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 520 Senior Member	While naming and debating the Top 100 is fun, the number of factors make comparisons difficult at best. Comparing across generations is difficult and somewhat subjective. Add comparing across gender which is definitely subjective. Throw in biases and different criteria (# of slams, # of wins etc.) and it's difficult to assess anything. When I look at Grand Slam victories, 5 women have more than Roger Federer. Margaret Court has 50 % more than him. We might conclude that winning a lot of male Grand Slams is more difficult than winning as a woman. That conclusion may be historical rather than current as in the last 10 years, Roger and Rafa have been winning at a greater pace than the women. So, in the end, there's a lot of subjectivity. When looking at the list, I try to latch on to similarities. I'm comfortable enough comparing Federer, Nadal, Roddick, Djokovic etc. I can even extend that back to Connors, McEnroe, Borg. I honestly can't tell you with any convincing argument if Roger Federer is a greater player than Steffi Graf. Steffi has more slams. Roger has more slams than anyone in his peer group. They both won on all surfaces. Most would not argue about whether Roger would have beaten Steffi in a match. It's tough. Once you pass them through a few basics then it becomes about how I feel. I saw Connors, McEnroe, Graf, Navratilova and Seles play. I barely remember Newcombe, Rosewall and Laver from childhood. I have no sense as to what their games were like. I think the list got all of the top 20 or so right and within that list, we can subdivide but who's greater between the top few players, I don't know. Federer, Graf, Navratilova. One of them would be my choice with a lot still left to write in the Nadal story. I guess I'd pick Federer but it would purely be because I love watching him more than any other player I've ever seen. I still think Roddick is a underrated at 94. I'd chose his career over a lot of people ahead of him on the list. That's even without the Brooklyn Decker factor. And of course, Esther Vergeer, would be the runaway pick if given consideration. Fun to debate, hard to conclude.
	Quote