Player A of course. It's Wimbledon and that counts more.
Player B would have nothing special.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or sincere...lol For the record though, winning each slam twice is something no man or woman currently playing on tour has achieved. Federer is regarded (by some) as the greatest to have ever played the sport and he hasn't yet achieved this feat. But to be fair no one on tour has won 10 Wimbledon's either-
Dominating a slam like that and winning that amount of times would be the more remarkable of the two feats, but I don't know if "more remarkable" equals greater tennis player. Being able to win on any surface and doing it twice says a lot about you as a more complete tennis player. So I can see it going either way.
Originally Posted by irma
The most important factor is: "who are the player that I like and who are the players that I don't like as much"?
irma~ Iove your answer! (it seems like both darinbaker00 and volta do as well). To a certain extent your personal preference does play a big roll no doubt about it.
A lot of Venus fans honestly believe Vee > Justine
A lot of Seles fans marginalize Steffi's accomplishments
Navratilova fans believe Navrat > Steffi
and so on and so forth... when it's close we use our personal preference to help break ties. But only when it's close. I love Clijsters and although I do believe that at her best she's better than Henin, I can't justify saying Clijsters>Justine and no Clijsters fan ever would be able to because the gap in criteria we use to make that determination is to big to overcome by personal preferences.
So the bottom-line is that WHEN we can interject our preferences we do, but only when it's applicable. When it's not it's the same list of criteria that's being discussed in this thread...
STEFWHIT'S HALL OF FAMEGreatest Singles Player of All Time:
Simply the BEST:
[Proud MEMBER OF RENA'S ARM
The REAL GOAT
Clijsters, C.Evert, A.Agassi, A.Berasategui, N. Zvereva, I.Majoli, M.Safin, Li Na, VIKA, and Del Potro