Who is your pick? Mine would probably be Pete Sampras at this point; however, he never won the French Open, I believe. I think Andre Agassi could be in there, too, since he won all 4 majors at least once. It appears Roger Federer is on his way there, but I cannot call him the best yet.
2006-12-28 10:31:48 · 30 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Tennis
Andre Agassi,
Bjorn Bork,
Roger Federer,
Rod Laver,
Pete Sampras
2006-12-28 10:35:59 · answer #1 · answered by Texan 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's hard to measure who the best player of all time is. Do we measure in terms of Grand Slam trophies? Then perhaps Pete Sampras. How about having a double Grand Slam? Then Rod Laver. And why does it have to be a man? The sheer longevity of Martina Navratilova's career can also give her the honor.
But as an avid tennis fan, I would say it is Roger Federer. I have never seen any player so complete and overpowering on all fronts. For me I will enjoy watching him while he is at his peak form, because I think by the time his body goes into decline, he has probably broken Pete Sampras' record and perhaps finally completed the long-elusive Grand Slam.
2006-12-29 03:00:40 · answer #2 · answered by John Rae 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ofcourse ANGRE AGASSI undoubtedly
2nd. Boris becker
3rd. Bjorn Bork
4th.John Macenrow
5th. Pete Sampras
2006-12-30 06:20:15 · answer #3 · answered by mousumi_19 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Andre Agassi
2006-12-29 04:00:12 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Andre Agassi
2006-12-29 03:12:50 · answer #5 · answered by IM 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Roger Federer
2007-01-01 07:33:08 · answer #6 · answered by Tennis Star 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Federer
Sampras
Borg
Agassi
2006-12-28 13:01:45 · answer #7 · answered by Anirudh T 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Tough call to make....
But i'd say either Pete or Bjorn.
Pete cuz he's got 14 slams and was #1 for 6 consecutive years.
Bjorn cuz he won 11 slams in a short amount of time and he won the french and wimbldon in the same year 3 times in a row!! thats godly!!!!
2006-12-29 08:22:04 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The reasoning behind the prize money differences at tournaments is due to the following: 1. Men play more sets than women, and therefore work harder and longer than the women do. The minimum number of sets a man needs to win to win wimbledon is 21, while a woman can win the tournament in just 14 sets. 2. Tickets to men's matches sell more quickly and in greater volume than for women's matches. Men draw bigger crowds. 3. Television and media coverage of tennis events is still focussed mainly on the men. The men therefore generate more revenue for the media. 4. Men are worth much more to advertisers than women, because they are on our tv more. This makes them a more expensive commodity than the women. I'm sure most of us would agree that women's tennis should get equal coverage in the media and that as athletes they are just as worthy as the men, however you can't really argue with the fact that the men have to play more sets than the women.
2016-03-28 22:49:39 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Andre Agassi or Connors.....Federer is just the champ right now because of the lack of skill in other players
2006-12-29 04:01:32 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋