• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Battle of the Tennis Players

Magrat Garlick

Rather Mad Witch
Hewitt leads 4-3 1-0 (second set lasts until 14.45 utc)
Woodbridge leads 4-1 3-0

personally, in mild disagreement with one of the Australasian quota votes
 
Last edited:

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Going with Hewitt, sort of the proto-Nadal, really. First baseliner since Agassi to land Wimbledon, which I'm chauvanistic enough to think is the one that really matters.

Segura in the second. View doubles rather like ODIs tbh. Specialists in it are all well & good, but it's a secondary format.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Vilas and Segura.

Regarding doubles, its not much more than where people that cant play singles go to make a living. Not one doubles specialist should be on this list, especially as we have some ordinary ones winning battles (not referring to this one).
 

Magrat Garlick

Rather Mad Witch
Hewitt wins 4-3 3-1 (time had ran out when Ohtani and Goughy placed their votes)
Woodbridge wins 4-1 3-0

First round, battle twenty-nine

Jonas Björkman

Australian Open doubles 1998, 1999, 2001
Wimbledon doubles 2002, 2003, 2004 (singles semi-final 2006)
US Open doubles 2003 (singles semi-final 1997)
French Open doubles 2005, 2006
14 Masters series doubles titles
Davis Cup 1994, 1997, 1998
2 Doubles Championships incl a 1994 win over Woodbridge/Woodforde
World No. 4 in 1997 - world No. 1 doubles player in three different periods between 2001 and 2005
Career record: 413 - 358 (54 %) in singles; 695 - 298 (70 %) in doubles
Career titles: 52 doubles + 6 singles

Peter Fleming

Wimbledon doubles 1979, 1981, 1983, 1984 (quarter-final 1980)
US Open doubles 1979, 1981, 1983
Davis Cup 1979, 1981, 1982
World No. 1 doubles in 1984; World No. 8 singles 1980
Career record: 221 - 205 (52 %); 505 - 176 (74 %) in doubles
Career titles: 59 doubles + 3 singles

First round, battle thirty

Stefan Edberg

Australian Open 1985, 1987 (final 1990, 1992, 1993, doubles 1987, 1996)
Wimbledon 1988, 1990 (final 1989)
US Open 1991, 1992 (doubles 1987)
French Open final 1989
4 Masters Series titles
Masters Cup 1989 (doubles 1985, 1986)
Davis Cup 1984, 1985, 1987, 1994
2 Olympic bronze medals 1998
Career record: 806 - 270 (75 %)
Career titles: 42
World No. 1 for 72 weeks including 44 of 47 weeks from August 1990 to October 1992 - World No. 1 in doubles, together with John McEnroe the only one to be ranked No. 1 in both forms

Arthur Ashe

US Open 1968 (final 1972)
Australian Open 1970 (final 1966, 1967, 1971)
Wimbledon 1975
Davis Cup 1968 (First African American to be selected for the Davis Cup team)
Career titles: 33 singles + 18 doubles
 
Last edited:

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Interesting. I never realised the record of Ashe was so moderate.

Fleming (more damn doubles) and Edberg (would have thought Ashe was an automatic but cant justify placing him ahead of Edberg on tennis terms)
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
First battle's a bit of a clunker, isn't it? Going for Bjorkman as he's had remarkable longevity as a player & obligingly lost to Rusedski in the 97 US Open semi.

Edberg in the second.

Hewitt wins 4-3 3-1 (time had ran out when Ohtani and Goughy placed their votes)
Woodbridge wins 4-1 3-0
Wouldn't have affected the outcome, but Anil & I voted on time, didn't we?
 
Last edited:

grecian

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Fleming

Edberg

Regarding doubles, it used to be played by most of the top players, so I think it's okay to judge the McEnroes of this world, partly on their doubles supremacy. Admittedly the modern specialists are probably just inferior players who are decent volleyers.
 

Top