Disagree, because if you were a top player in the past you would be in modern times because you would have the same equipment and training as everyone else.
Well, who knows. Games develop through times and a player who was good in Laver's days may not have the same skillset to be elite today, which is why it's literally impossible to claim anybody is the best of all time factually.
Yeash, he's 74 now though. It would have to be one setters only. Sorry Fran, I'm in a very silly mood today.
This is true and it makes comparing them pretty much impossible. Like football, it's a completely different sport now.
No,it's not,it's very simple actually. For example,player a wins two calender grand slams and doesn't win anymore grand slams because he isn't allowed to compete in them. Player b on the other hand wins 1 slam a year for 15 years.Player a=8 slams and player b=15 slams.Player a is better.
Murray beats them in ATP finals doesn't he?And semi's of grand slams?So why can't he do it when it matters?
Because nobody gives a toss about ATP finals so nobody takes their A game? Murray put in 200% effort today but Federer still made him look like an amateur. He isn't as good.
There were two years when Federer won three grand slams and got to the final of the French. If he had not come up against somebody who is widely regarded as the best ever player on clay then he too would have won two calendar slams. Possibly if Laver had come up against Nadal on clay he wouldn't have won a French open in his slam years. You also have to remember that in the 60's alot of the top players didn't compete in the Australian open. Then you add in the fact that 3 of the 4 grand slams that Laver won were on grass. How would have coped with a Federer or a Nadal (or a Sampras) on a hard court? Overall it's something you can never answer. Laver was the best palyer of the 60's, Borg was the best of the 70's, the 80's were mad and possibly the best decade ever, Sampras was the best of the 90's, And Federer was the best of the last decade on all surfaces apart from clay where he was the second best. Who knows who would coem out on top if Federer had played in the 60's or Laver was around today, personally I think Federer, but it's something we'll never know (like is Messi better than Pele).
That is a very sound and reasonable post. To add to it, how could we even say who would be best at Wimbledon between Sampras and Federer? You just can't.
The player I loved to watch was Nastase...where are the characters now? McEnroe behaved dreadfully but was so watchable...how did he never get thrown out at Wimbledon whilst Henman did...one of life's mysteries.
Which decade do you play it in? In the 90's Sampras wins, in the 2000's Federer wins. In 2002 they completely changed the grass (look at the amount of upsets in that tournament), so I doubt Sampras's game would work today. Conversely, Federer would have to play differently in the 90's. Although, personally I think that Federer would do better in the 90's than Sampras would in the 2000's.
No our great British tennis player did not win, the Scottish loser lost. At least an Englishman won in the Mens Doubles!
Loved the doubles match. Great to know that sometimes the little guys can win. They mounted a great campaign and beat the number one mens doubles team in the semis. Marray and Neilson were childishly excited at the end. And what a piece of sportsmanship when Marray pointed out a fault that no one had seen rather than just accept a point.
I thought that might come back to bite him, but it was the right thing to do. Great sportsmen, great match, brilliant outcome. Theres only one Marray, thats for sure.
I remember Roger Taylor correcting a call at a very critical point at Wimbledon and it later cost him the match. This was at a time when there would never be subsequent video evidence. Obviously couldn't accept winning unfairly.
Does make a change to say John Terry in the FA cup semi. He admitted he knew it didn't cross the line (mostly due to his uncanny ability to get in the way of the ball), pity he didn't communicate that to the ref.
