Who Each Team Should Take in 2012 NFL Draft

1.       Indianapolis Colts: Andrew Luck, QB Stanford

There’s no doubt about this pick, and I do subscribe to the theory that this many scouts and personnel experts can’t be wrong.  The kid might not walk on water, but he’s going to be a hell of a player.  Indy fans might want another Peyton Manning, I think what they’re getting in Luck is the next Aaron Rodgers.  He’s mobile (his combine numbers were identical to Cam Newton’s) he’s the most accurate thrower in the draft, played in a pro system, has a very strong arm, and he’s the smartest football player to come out in years.

2.       Washington Redskins: Robert Griffin III, QB Baylor

The Skins have to take RG3 not only because they gave up a king’s ransom to get him, but also because he’s the first potential franchise changing player they’ve had an opportunity to draft in years.  Washington has some nice pieces on defense, and they added Josh Morgan and Pierre Garcon to complement Chris Cooley in the passing game.  Griffin has Mike Vick speed, with better accuracy, and an infinitely better head on his shoulders.  Both Luck and Griffin will be stars, and either would be great #1 overall picks. 

3.       Minnesota Vikings: Matt Kalil, LT USC

The Vikings are trying to screw this up as only they could, attempting to trade back and stockpile picks when they have a chance to draft a franchise player at a true position of need.  Kalil is athletic, strong, smart, durable, and fills a huge void on the Vikings offense.  He plugs in immediately and protects last year’s investment, Christian Ponder.  Kalil’s brother, Ryan, is an all-pro center for the Panthers, Matt might turn out to be even better. 

4.       Cleveland Browns: Trent Richardson, RB Alabama

Don’t tell me they have to give Colt McCoy a receiver unless you believe Colt McCoy is the answer at quarterback.  Getting Richardson gives you a franchise back that can run behind studs Joe Thomas and Alex Mack for the next 5-7 years.  Yes running backs have a short life span in the league, but a truly impactful one can make you relevant fast.  Richardson like Luck is the best runner to come out in a while, since Adrian Peterson. 

5.       Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Justin Blackmon, WR Oklahoma St.

My Draft Philosophy is that unless you have a glaring need; take an opportunity to make yourself really good at something.  Adding Blackmon to newly signed Vincent Jackson and incumbents Mike Williams and Kellen Winslow would give the Buccaneers one of the best receiving corps in football.  With the addition of all-pro guard Carl Nicks to an already strong offensive line, bringing Blackmon into the fold sets up Josh Freeman with everything he should need to return to his form of two seasons ago.

6.       St. Louis: Morris Claiborne, CB LSU

St. Louis is mad if this is the way things go, but really they shouldn’t be.  Claiborne is an elite prospect and would form a formidable duo with newly signed Cortland Finnegan.  The Rams defense has some promise with Chris Long and James Laurinitis, and Claiborne would represent the next building block of something truly special.  I know Sam Bradford needs weapons, but the worst thing to do is reach to get him a weapon, when you could have gotten a similar player in a later round.  Besides, sometimes a good defense is a quarterbacks best friend (ahem Alex Smith).

7.       Jacksonville Jaguars: David DeCastro, OG Stanford

Yes all conventional wisdom will say this is too high to select a guard.  People will say Jacksonville needs some sex appeal, something to draw people to the games etc.  Well, ultimately what draws people to games is winning teams.  And the Jaguars have missed on a whole lot of picks lately.  DeCastro is maybe the best lineman in the draft and he will help be the glue to a young and struggling line in Jacksonville.  Not to mention, he will help protect Blaine Gabbert, who showed some bad tendencies last year, but it’s way too early to bail on him after selecting him in the first round.  Maurice Jones Drew would also probably like this pick.

8.       Miami Dolphins: Melvin Ingram, DE South Carolina

Don’t reach for the wrong guy; I just can’t say it enough.  Ryan Tannehill is talented, but he was a wide receiver for two years, and then played in the wide open big 12 where the game is very different from the NFL.  Pair Ingram with Cameron Wake and you’ve built on an already impressive defense.  Draft a passer in round two or three where you get a good value for them, and don’t have to reach.  The draft is about improving your team, not taking chances or making panic boom or bust moves. 

9.       Carolina Panthers: Fletcher Cox DT, Mississippi State

Jon Beason will be back for the Panthers at linebacker so as tempted as I am to put Luke Kuechly here, I think Cox fits a bigger need.  Cox is a good pass rusher from the inside, an active and disruptive player that excelled in a man’s league, the SEC.  Pair him with Beason and add some defensive backs later in the draft and the Panthers begin to rebuild what was a really bad defense last year. 

10.   Buffalo Bills: Luke Kuechly LB, Boston College

Kuechly is just a good all-around player.  He’s smart; runs well, can cover, and is a sure tackler.  I think he’s the type of guy that makes a few pro-bowls and is always a positive contributor to your team.  Marcel Dareus is going to be a star, and putting Kuechly behind him along with the return of a healthy Kyle Williams is an exciting thought for the Buffalo defense.

11.   Kansas City Chiefs: Stephen Gilmore CB, South Carolina

The Chiefs have some really nice pieces coming back to the offense- Jamal Charles, Tony Moeaki, and last year’s top pick Jonathan Baldwin will hopefully develop to complement Dwayne Bowe.  I don’t love Matt Cassel or Kyle Orton, but this is a team with enough weapons to make those players serviceable.  Gilmore would make a really nice complement to budding star Brandon Flowers at the other corner and Tamba Hali rushing the passer will make Gilmore’s transition easier. 

12.   Seattle Seahawks: Quinton Coples DE, North Carolina

In terms of size and ability Coples is very reminiscent of another former Tarheel, Julius Peppers.  Seattle has some nice pieces on defense, and adding premier pass rusher could take them to the next level. 

13.   Arizona Cardinals: Michael Floyd,  WR Notre Dame

I like Floyd, I don’t know that he’s a star but he’s a big physical talented player that will be trouble if you try to single cover him.  Alongside Larry Fitzgerald Floyd should flourish as a second receiver.  If Kevin Kolb can’t make it work with those two wide receivers than he’s just not the guy. 

14.   Dallas Cowboys: Mark Barron, S Alabama

The offense is loaded with talent, the front 7 is strong, and it’s the secondary that really needs help.  Dallas needs corners as well, but Barron is the best defensive back on the board at this point.  He hits like a linebacker and covers a lot of ground.  He should start immediately and develop into a good starter. 

15.   Philadelphia Eagles:  Michael Brockers, DT LSU

Brockers is a huge man with great talent who produced at a big time program.  He also fits a need as the Eagles were terrible up the middle of their defense last year.  New middle linebacker Demeco Ryans and Brockers should be a true shot in the arm for this defense. 

16.   New York Jets: Dontari Poe, DT Memphis

The Jets defense is starting to age and the defensive front could use an influx of youth and talent.  Poe is a big time risk with big time upside, sounds just like Rex Ryan’s type of player. 

17.   Cincinnati Bengals: Dre Kirkpatrick, CB Alabama

Kirkpatrick is a big time talent and fits the zone scheme the Bengals tend to use in coverage.  Jonathan Joseph’s departure hurt last year and Kirkpatrick can help fill the void opposite Leon Hall.

18.   San Diego Chargers: Kendall Wright, WR Baylor

Some might see this as a reach but Phillip Rivers too often is expected to just carry the team.  Wright is an explosive player that catches the ball well, is good after the catch, and seems the perfect weapon in the slot.  Wright, Antonio Gates, and Ryan Matthews are pretty nice Weapons to put around Rivers.

19.   Chicago Bears: Riley Reiff, OT Iowa

The Bears could use a solid, smart player that can come in and hold his own on the offensive line immediately.  That’s Reiff.  He may never be spectacular, but he should be solid right away and will turn into a good tackle opposite Gabe Carimi.   

20.   Tennessee Titans: Whitney Mercilus, DE Illinois

Mercilus is a pure pass rusher, and has a ton of talent.  It’s a position of need and if Mercilus is on the board, this is a no brainer. 

21.   Cincinnati Bengals: Cordy Glenn, G Georgia

They could probably use a complement to AJ Green, some help in the defensive front 7, and a running back to take Cedric Benson’s place since his wheels are about to fall off.  But, they also need to replace Bobbie Williams at guard, and Glenn is the best value above any wideout, d-lineman or running back left in my draft. 

22.   Cleveland Browns: Ryan Tannehill, QB  Texas A & M

I don’t love Tannehill but at pick 22, and needing a quarterback this is too good of a scenario for Cleveland to pass up.  In all reality there’s no way he lasts this long, but in a world where logic prevails (my draft world) Tannehill is a Brown with the 22^nd pick.

23.   Detroit Lions: Jonathan Martin, OT Stanford

The Lions have needed line help for a long time, and Martin is an above average athlete with solid technique and good intelligence.  Matt Stafford and Calvin Johnson are true superstars, give them time to operate and they will win a lot of games.  Running back is also a need as is secondary help, but the line I think has to come first. 

24.   Pittsburgh Steelers: Don’t’a Hightower, ILB Alabama

Hightower is really a Steeler type of player.  He’s physical, strong, bruising and fits well as a replacement for James Farrior. 

25.   Denver Broncos: Coby Fleener, TE Stanford

Everyone gets better when Peyton Manning is on their team.  That means a Denver defense with some holes will get better just by virtue of Manning holding the ball longer and putting up more points.  So I say give Peyton the weapons he’s going to need.  Fleener is a good athlete, he’s big, will be great in the red zone and can contribute immediately. 

26.   Houston Texans: Courtney Upshaw, DE/OLB Alabama

Is it me, or could you basically field a team with just Alabama and Stanford’s draft class this year?  Upshaw is a big strong player that can both rush the passer from the outside linebacker spot, and occupy blockers as a 3-4 end.  I think he continues to build the Texans defense into one of the best units in the league. 

27.   New England Patriots: Janoris Jenkins, CB North Alabama

You’d be correct in saying that this guy doesn’t really epitomize the “Patriot Way” but Bill Belichick also relishes reclamation projects, and loves to mold talent.  Jenkins is a top 15 player in this draft in terms of talent, and if put in the right environment like New England, maybe he flourishes.  New England needs corner help, and Jenkins has the raw talent to be a star. 

28.   Green Bay Packers: Jerel Worthy, DT Michigan State

I’m convinced the Packers defensive backfield has enough talent to regroup and play much better, and the offense is historically good.  They need help in the trenches and Worthy can probably play any spot along the defensive front.  He represents depth, versatility, and an upgrade in talent.

29.   Baltimore Ravens: Peter Konz, C Wisconsin

Matt Birk is as old as time and Konz could probably play guard until Birk retires and then slide over.  Ben Grubbs left via free agency so the interior line is a must to address.  Stephen Hill might be another thought at wide receiver, but they already drafted their burner last year in Torrey Smith.

30.   San Francisco 49ers: Stephen Hill, WR Georgia Tech

Yes they need a guard and they stocked up on wide receivers in free agency, but if Moss doesn’t work out, then they’re down to Mario Manningham and Michael Crabtree.  I think Hill represents a good value because of his rare size and speed, but I won’t be mad if the Niners go with Kevin Zeitler (guard, Wisconsin) here. 

31.   New England Patriots: Chandler Jones, DE/OLB Syracuse

So the Patriots get a cover corner and a pure pass rusher, this would be a good day for New England fans. 

32.   New York Giants: Doug Martin, RB Boise State

I don’t love taking a running back in the first round unless it’s a rare breed like Richardson, but it’s at the back end of the first round, Brandon Jacobs is gone, and Ahmad Bradshaw can’t carry the load by himself.  I think Martin will help right away, and reminds me of Mark Ingram coming out.  A balanced, solid runner who will go over 1,000 yards a time or two in his career. 

The Bruins are Back

Accuse me of hyperbole, being a homer, whatever your choice of words, you’re probably right.  But I’m not wrong when I say the UCLA Bruins basketball program is back in a big way.  Weeks after a Sports Illustrated article came out exposing the seedy underbelly of the Ben Howland era, somehow the Bruins shook off the PR nightmare to land the best recruiting class in the country.

It used to be that getting a great recruiting class meant good things were coming in 2-3 years.  These days in college hoops the best players depart for the NBA as soon as possible, meaning many times the best players in the country are freshman.  And UCLA brought in a slew of “diaper dandies” culminating on Monday with the signing of big man Tony Parker. 

Parker joins other top recruits Shabazz Muhammad, Kyle Anderson, and Jordan Adams giving UCLA 4 of the top 40 rated freshman in this year’s crop.  Muhammad is the true gem of the class, rated as either the number 1 or 2 high school player in the country depending on whether you believe more in rivals.com or ESPN’s rankings.

Either way Muhammad brings athleticism, skill, and most importantly, creativity on offense.  He has the ability to take over the scoring load by himself.  Howland’s teams have historically been predictable and sluggish offensively, and Muhammad is the rare wing scorer that can take a game on his shoulders even if the offensive system is sputtering.

Anderson is the other true blue chip recruit in this class, though Adams and Parker should both compete for heavy amounts of playing time right away.  Along with Muhammad, Anderson was considered at least a top 5 player in the nation.

If Muhammad is the slasher and scorer, Anderson is the table setter.  A silky if methodical athlete, Anderson is a 6’7” point-forward with elite court vision and passing skills, not to mention a good mid-range offensive game, rare amongst today’s young players.

These fab freshmen would be enough by themselves to elevate UCLA back to the NCAA tournament and even greater heights it would seem, though they won’t be filling up a bare cupboard.  Still remaining on the Bruins roster is the talented but forever out of shape Josh Smith- a behemoth of a man for the college game.  If his conditioning ever matches up with his ability he can dominate college basketball. 

The brothers Travis and David Wear proved to be solid post players that should improve in their second year with the school after transferring from North Carolina.  With the Freshman Parker, Smith, and the Wears UCLA will possess a rare amount of size and versatility in the post that should make them a nightmare to matchup with. 

Then slide over to the wing where Muhammad should be an instant star, and will be accompanied there by the talented guard/forward Tyler Lamb.  Anderson will likely play a lot of point guard, and perhaps Norman Powell will be able to build on his decent freshman campaign of a year ago to provide depth at the guard position.  Adams will also slide between guard and forward providing great athleticism and scoring punch. 

What success is really going to boil down to in Westwood is Coaching and expectations.  Given the talent on this team there’s no reason to think they aren’t capable of making a run at the elite 8 and maybe even beyond.  We’ve seen the importance of freshmen in changing the landscape of college hoops and maybe UCLA has enough young talent to continue that trend.  But after all the dysfunction that has plagued this program over the past 2-3 years, can we as fans really expect this team to reach its potential?

That’s where the coaching comes in.  At one point Howland seemed to be one of the truly elite coaches in America.  He made Pittsburgh into a power, and then swiftly rebuilt UCLA into a juggernaut that reached 3 consecutive final fours producing NBA stars (and a slew of other solid NBA players) like Russell Westbrook and Kevin Love along the way.  

You would think that type of success would buy a little leeway and some more time to get things right when they go astray.  But the expectations at UCLA are always sky high, and things certainly have veered off course recently. 

Howland’s recruiting haul is both a blessing and a curse.  It should, if things go according to plan and potential, once again restore the luster to the Bruins program.  If, however, UCLA underachieves it could cost the man that so recently restored Bruin Pride his job in Westwood.  

The Sneaky Lakers?

Is it possible for the Los Angeles Lakers to fly under the radar?  In the dramatic sense no.  Andrew Bynum’s behavior, Kobe’s latest injury, the Pau Gasol trade drama where all headline stories at some point this season, but to what end?  These stories were more empty calories, fun for the sports world to snack on, but not really substantive issues as it relates to whether this team can win a championship.  In the respect that the Lakers are a legitimate threat to win another title, yes they can and are flying under the radar.

No, they are not the prohibitive favorites to win a ring, or even favorite’s period.  Their bench is thinner than Tony Kornheiser’s hair, and not quite as entertaining to watch.  They still lack overall athleticism, they don’t have great outside shooters, and Mike Brown despite piloting the team to the West’s three seed doesn’t seem to have the respect of many in Laker nation. 

Still, when looking at LA’s roster, how many teams can really compare to their talent level?  Andrew Bynum may have been the best center in the league before Dwight Howard was lost for the season with a back injury, and certainly Bynum is now the most dominant center in the league.  He continues to grow and get stronger seemingly by the quarter.  Over the last ten games, most of which Kobe missed with an injury Bynum has posted averages of 23 points and 12 rebounds (he’s at 19 and 12 over the course of the season).  Complement Bynum with the most skilled post-up player in the league, Pau Gasol, and the Lakers have the preeminent duo of big men in the league. 

Typically, when you combine 2 of the best 5 big men in the game, with a guard that is the league’s leading scorer, and will end his career as a consensus top ten player of all time you have a pretty good formula.  Yet the Lakers weren’t complete until a couple of things happened. 

The first vital change was the addition of Ramon Sessions at point guard, and the subsequent jettisoning of father time Derek Fisher.  Sessions is not a super-star, but at 25 years old he is one of the quickest players in the league and has tremendous open court speed.  He brings an ability to slice into the lane and create opportunities for the rest of the team, an element the Lakers have been lacking for years.

 

Sessions is not a great defender, but he at least has the speed to stay with the likes of Russell Westbrook, Chris Paul, Mike Conley, Tony Parker, and Ty Lawson.  He also will make the opposing point guard work on defense, whereas Fisher was nothing more than a spot up shooter.  Sessions has averaged 13 points and 6 assists with the Lakers, more than double the production D-Fish chipped in.

The other important development for LA was the addition by subtraction that occurred when Kobe went out with a shin injury.  With Bryant sidelined LA went 5-2, Bynum and Gasol became the focal points that many Laker fans have been screaming for them to be even with a healthy Bryant, and Ron Artest had his best offensive stretch as a Laker.  Artest has poured in 15 points per game over the last ten contests, more than double his season average.  He seems to be in better shape, more confident, and more willing to take smaller defenders into the post and use his strength to get to the bucket.

 

Add the improved play of Matt Barnes, the steady play of Steve Blake, and the little bit of run that Devin Ebanks received in Bryant’s absence, and the Lakers showed they are more than just the Mamba and two big men.

In fact, the Lakers will only have a shot to win a championship if Bryant was taking close notes of what he saw from the sideline these past two weeks.  Kobe is having his worst shooting season percentage wise since his rookie campaign, despite the fact that he leads the league in scoring.  Kobe will always take a lot of shots, but he has to be smart enough, and check his ego enough to realize that Bynum (shooting 56%) and Gasol (shooting 50%) need to get more attempts. 

Once a team that looked old, slow, injury prone, and lacking any depth now seems to be growing increasingly formidable.  What other team can boast three players that might all be the best in the league at their respective position?  The Heat might be close in that respect, but Sessions and Artest aren’t the dead weight that rounds out the Heat starting five; in fact both are above average NBA players. 

The final piece to the possible puzzle for a Lakers championship is the fact that every other contender in the league has major flaws. 

The Heat lack depth, and rely on a mega-star whose talent is matched only by his own sense of self-doubt in clutch situations. 

The Bulls again look to be a great defensive team that will struggle to score and will increasingly rely on the terrific but overburdened and banged up Derrick Rose. 

The Celtics have gotten hot lately, but will struggle against bigger teams, Rajon Rondo doesn’t have to be guarded from 15 feet and out, and they will have to beat the Bulls and the Heat to make the Finals.

The Pacers just aren’t ready to beat the big boys, but their regular season success at least merits their mention in the contender discussion.

On the Western side of things the top teams similarly possess conspicuous flaws.  The Thunder has virtually no inside scoring.  Serge Ibaka and Kendrick Perkins are impressive post defenders, but relying on Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook to make enough jump shots to win a championship is not an easy formula.

The Spurs did this act last year, having a wonderful regular season and then disappearing in the playoffs.  Tony Parker is a super-star, but Ginobli has lost a step, and Duncan has lost a step and a half. 

The Clippers are incredibly impressive athletically, and the Chris Paul, Blake Griffin, Deandre Jordan lob city trio is as fun as NBA basketball gets, but this team lacks wing scoring, great depth, and playoff experience. 

The Grizzlies are everybody’s chic pick right now, but I don’t see enough in the way of a true go to guy to carry them through four best of seven series. 

So no, the Lakers aren’t the favorites, but I don’t know that there is a team that you can point to this year as one that “should” win if they stay healthy and play their best ball.  We could be in for the best, most competitive playoffs in years, just don’t be surprised if the Purple and Gold sneak their way to yet another championship.  

Tennis Top-10: #2 Margaret Court and #1 Steffi Graf

2) Margaret Court

Between both men and women, Margaret Court holds the most Grand Slam singles titles all-time with 24.  From 1969-1971 Court won 6 consecutive Grand Slam singles titles, a Calendar Slam-and-a-half.  A native Australian, Court owned her homeland Australian Open, winning it a record 11 times.  She claimed the French Open 5 times, the US Open 5 times, and Wimbledon 3 times.  Also a winner of what is called the “box set,” meaning to win the singles, doubles, and mixed doubles championships at every single grand slam, Court is one of three players in history to do so.

Overall combining singles, doubles, and mixed doubles Court claimed a flabbergasting 62 Grand Slam titles in her career, giving her not only the most accomplished career of any singles player ever, but the most combined Grand Slams of any player in history.

By any measure, Court was the most consistently and statistically proficient player of all-time. I simply feel she was never quite as purely dominant as my number one, nor did she play in as competitive of an era.

#2 Margaret Court

1) Steffi Graf

This is a unisex list, and at the top a woman reigns supreme.  Though Steffi Graf’s overall numbers may not be as aw- inspiring as Court’s, her sheer dominance over her career makes her the clear choice as the best tennis player of all time.

Graf claimed 22 grand slam singles titles—7 Wimbledons, 6 French Opens, 5 US Opens, and 4 Australians—from 1987-1999, doing most of her damage in a nine-year window from ‘87-‘96.  That Graf was equally brilliant on grass and clay, the two most drastically different surfaces in tennis, is proof of her versatility, immense talent, and extreme will to win.

In 1988 Graf won all four Grand Slam singles titles, plus the Olympic Gold Medal in singles—referred to as the Golden Slam—and is the only player man or woman to  ever have done so.  Perhaps the punctuation on her year of absolute brilliance in 1988 was her demolition of Natalia Zvereva: 6-0, 6-0 in the French Open Final.

From 1987-1990 Graf made thirteen-consecutive Grand Slam finals, again a mark that is unequaled by any man or woman in tennis history.  In terms of her career ranking, she holds the following records for both men and women: Most consecutive weeks ranked # 1 (186), most times finishing the year ranked #1 in the world (8), and most total weeks ranked #1 over her career (377).   She is also the only player to win every Grand Slam singles title at least four times.

With the main weapons in her arsenal being a devastating forehand, tremendous athleticism, and a deadly serve, Graf is certainly an easy choice as the greatest tennis player of all time.

Of course arguments can be made for nearly anyone on my list to take the top spot, but Graf’s dominance over her career and especially in her prime where so overwhelming that she is my pick.  When she was at her best, no person ever played a better brand of tennis, and the numbers bear that out.

#1 Steffi Graf

--from @AdamHocking

(first image, second image)

Tennis Top-10: #4 Martina Navratilova and #3 Roger Federer

4) Martina Navratilova

Tennis measures its all-time greats by results in the four major tournaments and almost nothing else. Certainly Martina Navratilova answered the bell in Grand Slams time and again. Overall Navratilova won 18 Grand Slam singles championships, including nine Wimbelodons, the tournament many consider the crown jewel of the tennis world. At one point she won six-consecutive Slam singles championships, tying Margaret Court, Maureen Connolly Brinker, and Don Budge on the men’s side for the longest such streak.

From 1983-1988, Navratilova made 19 consecutive Grand Slam semifinal appearances, a record that is unmatched by any man or woman in tennis history. Martina had streaks of making 6- and 11-straight women’s Grand Slam finals. Thus, for a stretch of 17-straight tournaments, she was either the best or 2nd-best player in the world. She also won slams in three separate decades, the 1970’s, 80’s and 90’s. Perhaps the most astound statistic to me was the fact that four times she won Wimbledon without dropping a set the entire tournament!

Between mixed doubles (10), doubles(31), and singles (18), Navratilova compiled 59 Grand Slam championships. Such a number is frustrating to all writers because there simply aren’t words to sum up how impressive that kind of domination is. “Versatility,” “perseverance,” “intelligence,” “commitment,” and “excellence” are inadequate to describe the career of Martina Navratilova, but they will have to do.

#4 Martina Navratilova

3) Roger Federer

I have to borrow from my cohort/mentor/life coach Eric to sum up the debate raging in my head over the top men’s player of all time, Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal? As he eloquently put it, “How do you reconcile the fact that the ‘greatest of all-time’ wasn't even the greatest of his own time?” Perfectly said, and a really hard argument to crack.

I settled on Federer for a mixture of reasons: part personal bias, part logic, and part historical analysis. In the broadest context, looking at tennis as a whole, Federer has to be considered the best men’s player ever because he has dominated the history of the game. He owns the record books, so he must take precedence over every other man that has ever picked up a racket. Nadal is no doubt great, but he does not yet have the number of Grand Slams to match up with Federer. In addition, the more recent dominance of Novak Djokovic over Nadal has helped accentuate the fact that domination of one personal matchup does not mean dominance of the entire historical landscape of tennis.

Nadal and Federer are going to be forever inseparable when we debate greatness and this era of tennis because of their thrilling rivalry, but I have to look at Nadal’s career conquests over Federer as more of a matchup problem for Roger than proof that Rafa is the greater all-time player. The best comparison I can draw is the year the Patriots went 16-0 and then lost to the Giants in the Super Bowl. The Giants could not claim they were the better team, but they matched up well enough to emerge victorious Super Sunday. Of course, Nadal is obviously a much greater figure in his respective sport than the 2007 Giants, but the comparison is valid.

Federer has a variety of shots and an artistry to his game that simply overwhelms nearly every person he has ever faced on the court. Nadal counters with perhaps the best defensive game we have ever seen, able to track down Federer’s miraculous strokes and answer with thundering forehands, impossible angles, and blinding speed. Federer also began his dominance at a time where absolutely nobody stood up to him, nor could they. Nadal was the first player to have the mental fortitude to stand up to Roger and believe that he could—and should—beat him.

Nadal could be number one only by virtue of his relative domination of Federer, but we can’t really compare how he would have fared against Bjorn Borg, Pete Sampras, Rod Laver, or Roy Emerson, men Federer has surpassed on the all-time Grand Slam list, since Nadal has yet to reach the career accomplishments of those players.

Simply put, Roger Federer is like Jack Nicklaus, and until somebody surpasses his number of Grand Slam titles, he is the greatest. Nadal may be the equivalent of Tiger Woods chasing down the legend, but he has yet to get there.

Federer has won every single major tournament, and has 16 total slams, two more than second all-time Pete Sampras, who was widely regard ten years ago as the best male player ever. Federer has won the 6 Wimbledons, 5 US Opens, 4 Australian Opens, and 1 French Open. He won Wimbledon and the US Open each five years in a row and the Australian three out of four years during a stretch of his career. Nadal’s domination has spread to every major, and he has 10 total, but six of them have come at the French Open, showing that he’s not as versatile a player as Federer.

Comparing Federer and Sampras is a relatively simple exercise. Number two all-time in men’s singles Grand Slams, Sampras never advanced past the semi-final round at the French Open. Federer’s career winning percentage is just over 80%, while Sampras is right at 77%. In 2004, 2006, and 2007, Federer won three out of the four grand slam tournaments, excluding just the French Open, which he claimed for his first and only time in 2009. In 2005 he slacked off, winning just two out of the four possible Slams.

His numbers are undeniable as is his domination, but what is really the tipping point for me is the way Roger plays the game. So refined, so precise and yet not without emotion. He cares, he falls to the court in ecstasy even after his sixteenth major win, and his variety of shots is something nobody has ever seen. Sampras thrived off of a great serve, good net game, and stunning forehand. Nadal is great because of his speed, strength, baseline game, and mental toughness.

Yet nobody in the history of the sport has had quite the variety, nor displayed the true essence of tennis beauty quite like Federer has on the court. Moving effortlessly, mixing slice, with power, and unbelievable top spin combined with a deadly accurate and powerful serve. He also possesses a type of “oh by the way” beautiful net game that he uses only when necessary. Whatever skill you can think of, whatever talent you could possibly want on a tennis court, Federer has to the fullest.

Federer may not have quite the numbers of some of his female counterparts lower on this list, but you have to measure him at least in some extent relative to the standards of men’s tennis. Since he has been by far the gold standard in the history of the men’s tour, it merits his high placement on the list. Heck, he could be the top player given his historical domination relative to other men, but our top two spots were so statistically impeccable that I had to bump the most aesthetically pleasing and dominant male player ever to number three on my unisex list.

#3 Roger Federer

--from @AdamHocking

(first image, second image)

Tennis Top-10: #6 Chris Evert and #5 Pete Sampras

6) Chris Evert

Besides being perhaps the best looking player on this list—apologies to Pete Sampras—Chris Evert had an unbelievable career. Like Martina Navratilova, Evert won 18 Grand Slam singles titles, but she wasn’t the doubles player that Navratilova was. Additionally, their head-to-head matchup, which was like cocaine mixed with Wonka Bars for tennis fans, ultimately tipped in Martina’s favor. They faced each other a total of 80 times, 14 of those matches coming in Grand Slam finals, where Navratilova won 10 of those contests. In all tournament finals (slams and non-slams) in which the two titans matched up, Navratilova won 36 to Evert’s 25. That’s enough rationale for Navratilova exceeding Evert on this list, but taking away from someone who had the immaculate career of Chris Evert is not what I’m here to do. With that in mind, let’s travel on to her numerous and astounding career accomplishments.

From 1973-1988, Evert set a record by reaching the most Grand Slam singles finals of any player in tennis history with 34. Meaning, over a 15-year stretch, Evert appeared in over half of all the Grand Slam finals played, a decade and a half of being the best or second best player going. She also stands alone as the queen of the French open, winning 7 singles titles at Rolland Garros. For good measure she also tossed in 3 Grand Slam doubles championships, which people tend to toss away as an “also” kind of stat. Such thinking is foolish. Doubles is perhaps harder than singles, especially for a player of Evert’s magnitude, because it requires majorly adapting one’s game, and in her case, trusting an inferior talent with half of the work load.

Evert also made the semi-finals of the U.S. Open at the age of 16. At the point when most of us are trying not to run over mailboxes with a newly garnered driver’s license, Evert was challenging Billie Jean King in the U.S. FREAKING Open!

Of her 17 years as a pro, Evert finished the year ranked number one in the world five different times. She also won 31 consecutive matches and 4 straight titles at the U.S. open, both records that are unmatched by any man or woman. Perhaps my favorite stat, because I believe not just simply in the importance of longevity but of sustained excellence over time, is that Evert won at least one slam in 13 consecutive years.

Had Evert’s career gone slightly different or her matches against Navratilova been closer to her favor, she certainly could have moved up on this list, and even so, her résumé stacks up with anyone from any era of tennis.

#6 Chris Evert

5) Pete Sampras

I said this list would be woman heavy, and it is, but I have to rank Pete Sampras ahead of Evert on my list simply because of the dominance he exhibited over the men’s draw. Evert was tremendous but did not overshadow her era to the extent that Sampras did. Though Sampras didn’t play much doubles, which I dock him points for, I can’t knock him too much for focusing on dominating men’s singles, which is exactly what he did.

For a long time, and I remember this well because I grew up during the Sampras era, tennis seemed boring. Serve out wide, Serve down the center, a sizzling forehand and perhaps a volley to finish the point, and Pete Sampras had defeated his opponent before anyone knew what was going on. But if you can make the highest level of professional sports seem boring, that’s a sign you’re pretty damn good.

It seemed unthinkable to me when I was younger that I would ever see a player near as dominant as Sampras, and then Roger Federer came along. Federer is essentially the same guy with a little more versatility to his game and an ability to play on clay that Sampras never had. In fact, that is the one major demerit on Sampras’ career. The furthest he ever got in the French open was a semi-final loss. But again, I point out the negative only to justify the ordering of my list, and now on to the positives.

Sampras won 14 Grand Slams and was runner up four times in an era where Andre Agassi, Michael Chang, Boris Becker, and Stefan Edberg provided Hall of Fame-level competition. His most heated rivalry was against Agassi, in which Sampras claimed 20 of their 34 career matchups.

Sampras went eight-straight years with at least one Grand Slam title and eleven-straight years with at least one Grand Slam finals appearance, records only Federer, Ivan Lendl and Bjorn Borg can match. He was also the undisputed king of Wimbeldon, winning it a record 7 times, done in a span of just 8 years. He won the U.S. Open three-straight times, five times overall, and tossed in two Australian Open championships for good measure.

Lacking the personality of Agassi or the artistry of Federer, but when he was in his prime you simply did not beat Pete Sampras, and that in the end is all that matters.

#5 Pete Sampras

--from @AdamHocking

(first image, second image)

Tennis Top-10: #8 Rafael Nadal and #7 Serena Williams

8) Rafael Nadal

With apologies to Bjorn Borg, who does have one more Grand Slam than Rafael Nadal, I have to put the Spaniard ahead of him on this list because with a reasonable projection, Nadal could end up the best of all-time. Certainly, with the emergence of Novak Djokovic, Nadal’s dominance has taken a step back—Nadal has been runner up to Djokovic in three consecutive Slam finals—yet only 25 and still the king of clay, I believe Nadal has probably a handful of Grand Slam championships left in the tank.

When Nadal first burst onto the scene he was certainly fun to watch, but many thought he was just a clay-court sensation along the lines of a Gustavo Kuerten or Carlos Moya. While clay is undoubtedly Nadal’s premiere surface, he has won four Grand Slams off the red stuff, including two Wimbledons—grass the most alien surface compared to clay. Not to mention, he won those Wimbledons against the god of grass courts, Roger Federer.

It’s impossible to take in Nadal’s career without looking at what he’s done against Roger Federer, and I will detail said matchup when I reach Federer in the countdown. So for now let it suffice to say that Nadal has dominated his head-to-head battle with Club Fed.

Nadal won the French Open six times in a row, and from 2008-2011 won 7 of the 12 total Grand Slam championships, as well as finishing runner-up twice. His record at the French open is 45-1, and his overall grand slam record is 149-21, an 88% winning rate in the biggest tournaments in the world—a slightly better percentage than Federer (81%) has compiled.

With 10 total Grand Slams, and Federer seemingly unable to beat Djokovic or Nadal right now, Rafa has a chance to make a run at least to surpass Pete Sampras’ 14 Slams and maybe to reach the golden number of 16 currently held by Roger.

To conclude, what makes Rafa so great is his mental toughness. So often tennis is a sport where a player will win the first set 6-2 and then lose the following set. There’s a natural ebb and flow for most tennis players, and momentum fluctuates easily. Nadal, on the other hand, creates his own momentum. Seizes it, and never lets it go. He never relaxes, never gets comfortable, and never gives away even a single point. Nadal is perhaps the best player of all-time at chasing down impossible balls, and not only returning them, but hitting winners. I have never seen a player that could run 50 feet to retrieve a ball and then have the balance, strength, and focus to carve out a perfect forehand winner down the line.

Rafa’s conditioning, athleticism, and mental fortitude are what make him the 8th-greatest tennis player ever, and will also likely move him up this list with time.

#8 Rafael Nadal

7) Serena Williams

I can’t help but start with the negative here. What’s tragic to me about Serena Williams is that she is perhaps the most athletically gifted tennis player I have ever seen, but she has never loved the sport enough to dominate it to her fullest potential. If she was as committed as Federer or Martina Navratilova or Chris Evert, perhaps we have her at the top of our list. For now she sits at 7.

In terms of singles Grand Slam titles, Williams has 13—behind only Margaret Court, Steffi Graf, Evert, Navratilova, and Hellen Wills Moody—and plenty of time left in her playing career. Williams’ 12 Grand Slam doubles titles and 2 mixed doubles Grand Slam championships also speak to her versatility and enormous talent.

Williams is probably the strongest, most powerful woman to ever play and is capable of dominating in a fashion that no other player could, in men’s or women’s history. I compare her a little bit to Shaquille O’Neal. Physically, both were probably the most impressive athlete their respective sport has ever seen, but mentally from both you get excuses, distractions, endorsements, and the allure of being “bigger than the sport.” Serena wants to be an icon, a celebrity as much if not more than she wants to be great at tennis, saying most recently that she doesn’t even love the game. Given all that, her accomplishments are incredible, and it just would have been fun to see what a fully committed Serena could have been.

Another interesting dynamic to Serena’s career has been the presence of her tremendous sister Venus and their overbearing father Richard who casts a shadow over every event in which the ladies participate. Serena vs. Venus finals always were awkward, and some felt almost pre-arranged. Such a dynamic always bothered me; the family seemed to interfere instead of letting Serena and Venus’ career arcs play out naturally.

From 2002-03 she completed the “Serena Slam,” winning the French, Wimbledon, US Open, and Australian Open consecutively. It didn’t happen in a single year, but winning all four big tourneys in a row is a great accomplishment no matter how the calendar divides it.

In 2002 Serena won the US Open and Wimbledon both without dropping a set. This is the kind of domination I always felt Serena could have sustained had she truly committed to tennis and nothing else. Perhaps though, much like other physically dominant athletes, Williams relied on her ability more than her technique, which inevitably leads to inconsistency. And as those types of players age, they don’t have the bag of tricks, the guile, or the variety in their game to continue to thrive.

Serena makes this list because at her best she may have been the most dominant force a tennis court has ever seen. She’s merely seventh because she hasn’t committed to being that force for her whole career.

#7 Serena Williams

--from @AdamHocking

(first image, second image)

Tennis Top-10: #10 Bjorn Borg and #9 Billie Jean King

10) Bjorn Borg

Though Ivan Lendl reached more Grand Slam finals than did Bjorn Borg, I prefer the closers, so Borg takes the final spot on this list.  Borg won 11 of the 16 Slam finals in which he played.  Lendl claimed just 8 of 19.  Also the literal translation of his name according to Wikipedia is “Bear Fortress.”  True or not, that almost led me to putting him number one on this list.

Eleven Grand Slams makes Borg fourth all-time on the men’s list behind Roy Emerson and tied with Rod Laver, but I’ll give Borg the nod over those two since he played in a slightly more difficult era and played only ten true years on tour, though he made a strange comeback ten years post retirement from 1991-1993.

Borg was the opposite of two of his major rivals in that he was the picture of serenity and calm on the court, rarely unraveling or raving like the maniacal Jimmy Connors or the petulant John McEnroe.  Perhaps his even keel is why he enjoyed greater career success relative to those two.

Much like Rafael Nadal today, Borg utilized tremendous groundstrokes, speed, and impeccable conditioning to wear out his opponents both mentally and physically.  Borg was especially unique in an era where serve and volley was the prevailing style of play.

Oddly, Borg never won the US or Australian Opens, though he was a four-time US Open finalist.  He did however show the hallmark of versatility which is winning on both the grass of Wimbledon and the clay of Rolland Garros.  He claimed the French six times and Wimbledon five.

Other stats of note: Borg won two French Opens without dropping a set.  He won five consecutive Wimbledons and is the only player to ever win Wimbledon without dropping a set.  He is the only player to win the French and Wimbledon three years in a row—considered the two most contrasting and thus difficult slams for a single athlete to win.  In his career he was a combined 100-6 at Wimbledon and the French Open.  Lastly, he beat a record eight other Grand Slam champions during the course of his career, proving he could compete with the very best.

#10 Bjorn Borg

 9) Billie Jean King

In the period between 1966 and 1975, Billie Jean King won 12 Grand Slam singles titles, 9 Grand Slam doubles titles, and 10 mixed doubles titles.  Between singles, doubles, and mixed doubles, a player could participate in 12 grand slam competitions per year.  Over a 9-year span, King won 31 of the possible 108 Grand Slam events she could have participated in.  In other words, she won about 29% of everything in every category for nine years—not bad for a single player.

Outside of her main nine-year run of dominance, she added 8 other slam titles, bringing her grand total to 39 for her career.  In addition to King’s 12 Slam singles titles, she was runner up six times, primarily losing to another great you may see on this list, Margaret Court.

Encompassing 4 Wimbledons, 4 US Opens, 2 French Opens, and an Australian singles title, King won on every surface and finished the season ranked Number 1 in the world an incredible six times.

King also famously, and importantly, beat Bobbie Riggs (who had played professionally in the 1930’s and 40’s) in what was called “The Battle of the Sexes” in straight sets.  Like an ass, Riggs had claimed that despite being out of the game for 20 years he could still beat the best the women’s game had to offer.  King swiftly dismissed Riggs and his deluded notions.

An icon, a versatile player, and a résumé to rival any player in tennis history, King deserves the #9 spot.

#9 Billie Jean King

 --from @AdamHocking

(first image, second image)