Greatest Players of All Time - according to Tennis Abstract

GAMEOVER · Pro player

RE: Greatest Players of All Time - according to Tennis Abstract

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

Pauline Betz was nowhere near my list Im afraid! Didnt even get a look in on any of my several early drafts ! Will read the entry on her with great interest

www.tennisabstract.com/blog/2022/10/08/the-tennis-128-no-35-pauline-betz/

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

Counting up properly, I still have 31 names on my list not yet named and there are 34
To come - so there will be at least 3 surprises from
My perspective . One I thoroughly expect to be Jack Kramer, who I failed to include, the other 2 (at least) I have no idea.

GAMEOVER · Pro player

I have 34 names left but I would be surprised if it is the same 34 as Jeff.

GAMEOVER · Pro player

We have player no.34 and it is Ellsworth Vines. He was no33 on my list so very close there. He was a pre war player but I figured he was successful enough to feature highly in the top 50. A decent golfer as well. Have you got him Jon?

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

GAMEOVER wrote:
We have player no.34 and it is Ellsworth Vines. He was no33 on my list so very close there. He was a pre war player but I figured he was successful enough to feature highly in the top 50. A decent golfer as well. Have you got him Jon?

oh well done. I would count that as a near bullseye, Gameover!!

Nope, nowhere near my list really and hopefully 1 of the 3 I knew would be missing!

Looking back, I rate him and his career but didnt really focus on him enough to pop him in there!!

https://www.tennisabstract.com/blog/2022/10/11/the-tennis-128-no-34-ellsworth-vines/

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

A thing about Vines I overlooked was his Pro record in the 30's was excellent. As well as winning the slams (2 US and 1 Wimbledon in 1932-33) he turned Pro and went onto win 4 Pro Slams, which get overlooked by so many in the record books (and shouldnt be as the best players played them, and the standard was higher than Amateur slams). SO it could be argued he won 7 Majors and that puts him right up there.

In 1934 he won the Wembley Pro (which many years later in the 70's/80s or so became the Benson and Hedges that filled our screens on BBC1 through early November (for a while the big indoor event before Paris Bercy came along). 1935 he won the French Pro (played at Roland Garros?) and Wembley again, in 1939 the US Pro (at Beverley Hills that year), before the war got in the way of tennis and sports generally.

For those interested, there are pretty complete draws for many of those events

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Pro_Championship_draws

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wembley_Professional_Championships_draws

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Pro_Tennis_Championships_draws,_1927%E2%80%931945#1939

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

Something else of note - if you watch some of the videos on the TA write up, the play looks very slow; yet, Vines served big at like 130 mph, presumably the video is slowed down due to tech at the time? Not sure, but more importantly, if you watch the singles action, no one is serving and volleying. I assumed players did then but presumably it was the Aussies in the 50's and 60's who really turned the game into serve volley as a predominant style, then through the Mcenroe, Becker and Edberg era, Sampras etc in the 80s and 90s before it all started to revert to baseline in the early noughties.

But if you scroll down to the video of the doubles match at Wembley, you will see the pace and style is much more akin to today. Lot of power play, net rushing on serve, big smashes and generally, top spin aside (which was nigh on impossible with the old wooden racquets) the game looks very familiar to us looking at it from 80 years on.

Fascinating and, once again, thanks Jeff for some immaculate research!

indiana · Tennis legend

GAMEOVER wrote:
I have 34 names left but I would be surprised if it is the same 34 as Jeff.

I reckon you might have a chance. I've been well impressed, particularly with some of your recent predictions.

Do you mean 34 ( now 33 ) out of your top 50?

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

indiana wrote:
GAMEOVER wrote:
I have 34 names left but I would be surprised if it is the same 34 as Jeff.
I reckon you might have a chance. I've been well impressed, particularly with some of your recent predictions.
Do you mean 34 ( now 33 ) out of your top 50?

Im also impressed! Of the 17 top 50 unveiled to date, Ive named 9! So, half effectively! If get the rest right Ill do ok but wont up there with Gameover !

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

Mind you, I got one spot on! So bonus points !

GAMEOVER · Pro player

Alternating male and female becomes part of a challenge. This makes it difficult to hit the jackpot exactly.

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

GAMEOVER wrote:
Alternating male and female becomes part of a challenge. This makes it difficult to hit the jackpot exactly.

It definitely is - I have paired all mine so that 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, 47-48 etc where all male/female combos. I had no idea how else to possibly split them!

Of the 17 top 50 named so far, how many where in your top 50, Gameover? As mentioned, I have got 9 out of the 17 in my own top 50, so not doing very well! I still have 31 names on my list, so at best can gt to 40/50 which I think will still be a big gap!

My biggest miss is on that era of players in the 30's to 50's really. I think I failed to weigh up the pro game stats at the time enough and treated most of them as amateurs only.

-- Edited by JonH comes home on Wednesday 12th of October 2022 09:32:45 AM

GAMEOVER · Pro player

ThereJonH comes home wrote:
GAMEOVER wrote:
Alternating male and female becomes part of a challenge. This makes it difficult to hit the jackpot exactly.
It definitely is - I have paired all mine so that 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, 47-48 etc where all male/female combos. I had no idea how else to possibly split them!
Of the 17 top 50 named so far, how many where in your top 50, Gameover? As mentioned, I have got 9 out of the 17 in my own top 50, so not doing very well! I still have 31 names on my list, so at best can gt to 40/50 which I think will still be a big gap!
My biggest miss is on that era of players in the 30's to 50's really. I think I failed to weigh up the pro game stats at the time enough and treated most of them as amateurs only.

-- Edited by JonH comes home on Wednesday 12th of October 2022 09:32:45 AM

There are 4 so far in the top 50 I have missed. Vilas and Clijsters were on my long list but then got omitted. Martinez and Azarenka I never considered. I had John Newcombe in my top 50 but he ranked 52 I would rate Mary Pierce as better than Martinez and I am not keen on Azarenka.. I am sure I have 3 players still left who did not make the top 128. I have definitely under rated Venus and Andy as I have both lower than 34 and I am sure they will make 33 or better. It is very difficult to rate 3 of the women from over 70 years ago who rarely lost against the likes of Martina, Chrissie, Steffi and Serena.

I've just spotted other names I over ranked i.e better than 34 Agassi, Sharapova, Betz, Perry, Vines. I still have 33 names left but some will not be top 128

-- Edited by GAMEOVER on Wednesday 12th of October 2022 02:15:54 PM

-- Edited by GAMEOVER on Wednesday 12th of October 2022 02:19:16 PM

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

GAMEOVER wrote:
ThereJonH comes home wrote:
GAMEOVER wrote:
Alternating male and female becomes part of a challenge. This makes it difficult to hit the jackpot exactly.
It definitely is - I have paired all mine so that 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, 47-48 etc where all male/female combos. I had no idea how else to possibly split them!
Of the 17 top 50 named so far, how many where in your top 50, Gameover? As mentioned, I have got 9 out of the 17 in my own top 50, so not doing very well! I still have 31 names on my list, so at best can gt to 40/50 which I think will still be a big gap!
My biggest miss is on that era of players in the 30's to 50's really. I think I failed to weigh up the pro game stats at the time enough and treated most of them as amateurs only.

-- Edited by JonH comes home on Wednesday 12th of October 2022 09:32:45 AM
There are 4 so far in the top 50 I have missed. Vilas and Clijsters were on my long list but then got omitted. Martinez and Azarenka I never considered. I had John Newcombe in my top 50 but he ranked 52 I would rate Mary Pierce as better than Martinez and I am not keen on Azarenka.. I am sure I have 3 players still left who did not make the top 128. I have definitely under rated Venus and Andy as I have both lower than 34 and I am sure they will make 33 or better. It is very difficult to rate 3 of the women from over 70 years ago who rarely lost against the likes of Martina, Chrissie, Steffi and Serena.
I've just spotted other names I over ranked i.e better than 34 Agassi, Sharapova, Betz, Perry, Vines. I still have 33 names left but some will not be top 128

-- Edited by GAMEOVER on Wednesday 12th of October 2022 02:15:54 PM

-- Edited by GAMEOVER on Wednesday 12th of October 2022 02:19:16 PM

Well, if you have got 13 of the 17 named so far in the top 50, that is pretty good going, beating my 9!

If I look at the 31 names I have left, 7 of those (only) are pre Open era, so most of mine are from the Open era by far - to be fair, a few cross the boundary still (they will be on your list as well - Laver, Rosewall, Court, King) so I have 20 Open era, 4 boundary players, 7 pre Open era