I started getting into tennis after Agassi retired. I'd definitely say Djokovic is one of the best of my generation along with Federer, Nadal and Murray (even though he's a twat). McEnroe seems to think he can become the best of all time but he needs to win the French Open to have any chance of that.
You must be bloody old, then. I'd only put Federer, Sampras, McEnroe and Borg above him from the past 40 years. (I might be being harsh on Nadal there, but then again Djokovic has already passed McEnroe in terms of grand slam event singles wins.)
That's really harsh on both of them. Ward has shown his bottle time and again in the Davis Cup, unlike some British men who have wilted under similar pressure. He just lost to a better player yesterday. As for Herman, he also won a huge number of tight matches. He was a very good player but not a great one, and I'd say he pretty much maximised his talent, often beating more talented players. Usually a semi-final at Wimbledon was an achievement beyond his world ranking, and on three of those four occasions he lost to the world No 1 and eventual winner (Sampras twice and Hewitt in 2002). Only the Ivanisevic year was 'the one that got away'. British men's tennis over the past three or four decades is littered with very talented youngsters who didn't have the bottle, drive or maturity to make a success of their adult careers. To diss the second most successful of those many, many players seems odd to me. (I think the problem for tennis players is people only remember their last match, which in 127 out of 128 cases at a major event is a defeat.)
You're right, it does sound harsh, perhaps bottle is the wrong word. What I mean is in Henman's case you always knew somehow that he was never going to exceed expectations, this despite getting to 4 in the world at one point, and yesterday while Pospisil was able to find something extra in that last set you sort of knew that Ward wouldn't.
I find it extremely difficult to rank players from different eras. Technological advances in equipment, nutrition science etc etc. My timeframe is over 60 years ( so I am bloody old) and I've been astonished how many outstanding tennis players have graced the game over that period, all of whom could only beat what was in front of them in their own particular era. Although "how many titles won" is an important measure obviously , one of my measures is how much pleasure a particular player gave me while watching them play. Many have exhibited brilliance without racking up too many trophies. Djokovic is up there without a doubt ( probably in the top 5 or 6 I'd say), along with those you mentioned,but every one of the following, in their own ways were phenomenal players who were often runners up to another one or other of their contemporaries at the time. I'm sure I've left out a few. Hoad, Gonzales, Laver, Emerson, Fraser, Santana, Osuna, McKinley, Hewitt, Stolle, Newcombe, Nastase, Connors, McEnroe, Becker, Borg, Roddick, Smith, Lendl, Ashe, Samprass, Agassi, Djokovic, Federer, Nadal, Murray. The best ever for me: Federer ( hope he gets his 8th this year - he may). A close second would be Laver. But as I said, different eras.
I'm astounded by Roddick's presence in your list (the likes of Edberg and Wilander are far more deserving), but aside from that I agree very much. For me, you can't look past Laver as the best player ever - without the pre-Open era restrictions he'd have won over 20 grand slam events and he was such an artist.
I knew I left out some - agree with Edberg & Wilander. Roddick had his moments, not my favourite style of player, but he was involved in some great matches. Laver would definitely have amassed an unbeatable number of slams - it is too close to call and I went for Federer because I'm still watching him play sublime tennis, whereas the images of Laver are fading with the mists of time - he was a machine at the time, but Federer edges it for me because of his subtlety - although The Crab was no slouch - plus he had all those doubles successes which Federer never had. I might even throw Navritilova into that list.
I think you'll find it is "Surely you cannot be serious?" My response: please log in to view this image
Always had a soft spot for Jaroslav Drobny when I was a kid. Won a couple of grand slam events and also an Olympic medal at Ice Hockey.
Once again, the mists of time for me, google for yourself. The face in the picture looks familiar - is he a Canuck ?
One I never saw, even on telly. Just remembered another one I left of the list - Ken Rosewall, who I believe was beaten by Drobny at Wimbledon. Started watching in 53 - my gran bought a telly for the 53 coronation & was a tennis nut, but I don't recall watching Drobny - hell what a long time ago that was.
Drobny played around the same period as Doris Hart and "Little Mo". Soft spot for Hart too as she had a leg problem which caused a slight limp. Hoad had success primarily as a doubles player with Rosewall and also in mixed doubles.
I put Hewitt & Stolle in my list primarily as they were superb doubles partners for a while. As were Fraser & Laver, and Laver and Emerson. Hoad did win a few singles majors if I recall.
I never saw Kramer play but I did see Pancho Gonzalez in his twilight years and he was an incredible player who many have rated as the greatest of all time. He apparently was not an easy man to get along with and was married 6 times (2 of them he married twice). His last wife was Rita the sister of Andre Agassi. Someone once said that the kindest words he ever said to his wives was "Shut Up"! The American tennis commentator Bud Collins echoed this in an August 2006 article for MSNBC.com: "If I had to choose someone to play for my life, it would be Pancho Gonzales". When he died he was virtually penniless and Andre Agassi paid for his funeral.
