Greatest mens tennis player of all time

Moby said:
You should remove both hard courts for Djoker.
Click to expand...

That's half the tournaments, it would not be a fair comparison. Anyway his record at USO isn't extraordinary (3, same as Rafa).

wr8_utd said:
Rafa probably needs another Slam or two off the clay to reinforce his claims for GOAT. If he can win AO and be the first to do the career double Slam, he'll have much better credentials.
Click to expand...

Yes. And I think Djokovic simply needs to cross 20.
If Fed can win the AO, he would have the record on 3 tournaments which would be an amazing claim, but that's extremely unlikely. If he can reach 21 regardless I think it'll be tough to catch for anyone.
 
Last edited:
Roger and Novak are exceptional hard court players and unfortunately those make up half the Slams that are played. I wish there was a parallel universe where clay was 2 of the 4 Slams. Imagine the numbers :drool:
 
wr8_utd said:
Roger and Novak are exceptional hard court players and unfortunately those make up half the Slams that are played. I wish there was a parallel universe where clay was 2 of the 4 Slams. Imagine the numbers :drool:
Click to expand...
Or simply if he played better on hard courts he would have more.
 
wr8_utd said:
I diaagee. If it ends something like :

Rafa 20
Novak 20
Roger 21

People will most definitely be looking into a lot more than just the count then. Federer getting owned in the H2H by both his rivals will sway opinions too.
Click to expand...
Rafa having just 6 grand slams outside of his preferred one in the other side...How can he be GOAT when he isn't even in the discussion for the greatest ever in 3 out of 4 Grand Slams?

If Djokovic reaches Federer, then no discussion, he will be the GOAT. Otherwise, it has to be Federer.
 
2mufc0 said:
Or simply if he played better on hard courts he would have more.
Click to expand...
He's played 5 (?) AO finals, 4 USO Finals and that's despite missing/retiring during atleast 6-7 of those? Hard to do much better in an era of Novak and Roger on the hard courts.
 
Revan said:
Rafa having just 6 grand slams outside of his preferred one in the other side...How can he be GOAT when he isn't even in the discussion for the greatest ever in 3 out of 4 Grand Slams?

If Djokovic reaches Federer, then no discussion, he will be the GOAT. Otherwise, it has to be Federer.
Click to expand...

Well neither is Novak at 3 of the 4 Slams right? Also, for what it's worth, I maintain the stance that Novak will be GOAT if he reaches Federer. I've usually been backing Novak for it over Rafa.
 
Sampras, Aggassi, Federer ,Nadal and Becker are my favorites. Connors and McEnroe were before my time but they are American greats I admire
 
wr8_utd said:
Well neither is Novak at 3 of the 4 Slams right? Also, for what it's worth, I maintain the stance that Novak will be GOAT if he reaches Federer. I've usually been backing Novak for it over Rafa.
Click to expand...
If Djokovic reaches 20, he will be the greatest in Australia, and one of the greatest in US/Wimby. Federer is the greatest in Wimby, and in discussion for the greatest in the other two.

Nadal on the other side, outside of French Open is nowhere near the greatest players in the other three. His distribution of grand slams is by far the worst, for it to be considered GOAT.

Him in French Open > Fed in Wimbledon or Novak in Australia, no doubt there, but the other two were better than him in the other three GS.

I think that Novak might have a good claim to be the greatest even if he doesn't reach Fed but it just one GS behind (great in three GS, holding all 4 of GS at the same time, highest Elo ranking ever, positive h2h with anyone), while on the other side I would put Fed ahead of Nadal even if Nadal surpasses him. As impressive as Nadal's 13-14 GS in FO will be (greatest ever player in one GS), they won't show much for his performance outside of FO, which was nowhere as good as Federer's or Djokovic's.
 
Revan said:
If Djokovic reaches 20, he will be the greatest in Australia, and one of the greatest in US/Wimby. Federer is the greatest in Wimby, and in discussion for the greatest in the other two.

Nadal on the other side, outside of French Open is nowhere near the greatest players in the other three. His distribution of grand slams is by far the worst, for it to be considered GOAT.

Him in French Open > Fed in Wimbledon or Novak in Australia, no doubt there, but the other two were better than him in the other three GS.

I think that Novak might have a good claim to be the greatest even if he doesn't reach Fed but it just one GS behind (great in three GS, holding all 4 of GS at the same time, highest Elo ranking ever, positive h2h with anyone), while on the other side I would put Fed ahead of Nadal even if Nadal surpasses him. As impressive as Nadal's 13-14 GS in FO will be (greatest ever player in one GS), they won't show much for his performance outside of FO, which was nowhere as good as Federer's or Djokovic's.
Click to expand...
Yeah I pretty much agree with you. I see Rafa being GOAT only if he wins another AO (for the double Career Slam) and can pick up another Slam away from RG. I back him to win more RG so that would put him around 21 and then, with 8 Slams off clay and with a positive H2H with Federer, he'd have a good shout.
I agree though that just necessarily having a higher count shouldn't propel him or anyone to GOAT status.
 
Sampras, Federer, Djokovic and Nadal are the all-time greats, surpassing anything tennis had to offer before them (that includes McEnroe, Borg and Becker, and of course the overrated Agassi)
 
wr8_utd said:
Roger and Novak are exceptional hard court players and unfortunately those make up half the Slams that are played. I wish there was a parallel universe where clay was 2 of the 4 Slams. Imagine the numbers :drool:
Click to expand...
The problem with this argument is, imagine AO has remained a grass court tournament. Or one of the Slams is indoor hard.

At the end of the day they are what they are, and you can hardly complain about surface distribution when Nadal amassed a whopping 2/3 of his on a single surface.
 
wr8_utd said:
Roger and Novak are exceptional hard court players and unfortunately those make up half the Slams that are played. I wish there was a parallel universe where clay was 2 of the 4 Slams. Imagine the numbers :drool:
Click to expand...
AO and USO are pretty different. Also the conditions are very different. Federer was winning on rebound ace which was a whole lot different as well. It is what it is.

There's also no indoor slam where is Rafa's worst surface. Also bear in mind AO was played on grass before. Clay was usually the one surface that historically had the least appreciation.
 
Nobody has played tennis at a higher level than Nadal at Roland Garros (seriously go back and watch what he did to Federer in the 2008 final).

Djokovic has played the best tennis over the course of a year (2011 and 2016/16) across all surfaces.

Federer was the most dominant over a longer period of time (2004 - 2007 Fed won 11/16 Slams).
 
rpitroda said:
IMO it is Federer. Nadal is close and could take it. But I just don’t consider Djoko there.
Click to expand...

Why?

Regarding Nadal he’s been unlucky with injuries. Djokovic suffered one injury and look how long he took to recover.

Nadals been pretty decent in all the slams in the past 18 months, but not sure his knees can do two weeks of hardcourts. Petchey said it on commentary, but I hope Nadal reverts back to what he did at the AO for the rest of the year. He obviously doesn’t need to change it up for clay. But for other surfaces he needs to start thinking how to shorten points.
 
Skills said:
Nobody has played tennis at a higher level than Nadal at Roland Garros (seriously go back and watch what he did to Federer in the 2008 final).

Djokovic has played the best tennis over the course of a year (2011 and 2016/16) across all surfaces.

Federer was the most dominant over a longer period of time (2004 - 2007 Fed won 11/16 Slams).
Click to expand...

Federer had mono back then and probably is the lowest point of his career in that tournament against Nadal. He was struggling with Monfils in the semis.

Bojan11 said:
Why?

Regarding Nadal he’s been unlucky with injuries. Djokovic suffered one injury and look how long he took to recover.

Nadals been pretty decent in all the slams in the past 18 months, but not sure his knees can do two weeks of hardcourts. Petchey said it on commentary, but I hope Nadal reverts back to what he did at the AO for the rest of the year. He obviously doesn’t need to change it up for clay. But for other surfaces he needs to start thinking how to shorten points.
Click to expand...

Everybody had injuries in the course of their careers. Federer had back injuries, knee injuries, Nadal as mentioned, Djokovic as well. That shouldn't be an excuse.
 
Enigma_87 said:
Federer had mono back then and probably is the lowest point of his career in that tournament against Nadal. He was struggling with Monfils in the semis.



Everybody had injuries in the course of their careers. Federer had back injuries, knee injuries, Nadal as mentioned, Djokovic as well. That shouldn't be an excuse.
Click to expand...

Nadals missed the most grand slams though and has had the most troubles injury wise. He’s missed 6 grand slams, twice when he was defending champion Wimbledon 09 and us open 14. Had to pull out the french in 2016 too. Playing with one leg vs Stan in 2014 final.

Federers missed like two. The other two he didn’t play when fit.
 
Bojan11 said:
Nadals missed the most grand slams though and has had the most troubles injury wise. He’s missed 6 grand slams, twice when he was defending champion Wimbledon 09 and us open 14. Had to pull out the french in 2016 too. Playing with one leg vs Stan in 2014 final.

Federers missed like two. The other two he didn’t play when fit.
Click to expand...
Federer missed 4. Doesn't really matter the reasons tbh. He missed most of the clay season because of his knee and most likely if he participated in those could've ended injured, not sure why this is different to Nadal? Either way 2 missed slams difference isn't all that.

Federer has played through pain on more than one occasion in slams. Even as early as 05 against Safin.
 
Nadal is phenomenal but too dominant at a single tournament as compared to the others. I wouldn't take Federer being 15/5 on grass/others over 8/12. He would be poorer for that distribution. Also I've never liked the French Open. Been my least favourite tournament since the days of Sampras/Rafter/Agassi.

But they're all magnificent champions and it's all very subjective. Also depends on what you prefer. I'm obviously a huge fan of Federer's but attacking tennis in general appeals to me much more than long drawn out baseline rallies.

As things stand, all things considered, regardless of my bias, it should be Federer. But the contest is obviously still on.
 
Enigma_87 said:
Federer missed 4. Doesn't really matter the reasons tbh. He missed most of the clay season because of his knee and most likely if he participated in those could've ended injured, not sure why this is different to Nadal? Either way 2 missed slams difference isn't all that.

Federer has played through pain on more than one occasion in slams. Even as early as 05 against Safin.
Click to expand...

He could have played in two but he chose not to and focus on grass. He even said that himself he wanted a better chance at Wimbledon. He even entered more grass tournaments than he normally used to. Usually it was Halle and that’s it.

Also don’t buy the knees excuse you mentioned. Hard courts do more damage to your knees than clay courts. Clay courts are much better for the body but you gotta do a lot more running which Federer at this stage of his career didn’t want to.
 
Bojan11 said:
He could have played in two but he chose not to and focus on grass. He even said that himself he wanted a better chance at Wimbledon. He even entered more grass tournaments than he normally used to. Usually it was Halle and that’s it.

Also don’t buy the knees excuse you mentioned. Hard courts do more damage to your knees than clay courts. Clay courts are much better for the body but you gotta do a lot more running which Federer at this stage of his career didn’t want to.
Click to expand...

You've pretty much explained it yourself. There was ton of comments on that from memory when Federer decided to do it, but he(and also others) explained it - clay requires more twists and turns which was the reason why he got the injury in the first place. Obviously the harder the surface is the more stress on the knee, but on the other hand Federer is fast court player - playing clay would mean longer points and much more probable to aggravate or cause an injury for him. Playing 2 out of 3 grass matches in depleted field and short points means very little tbh.

Missing a slam for whatever reasons should be considered. Regardless of it is mental state or other injury. You can't use it for Nadal, whether not take it into an account for Federer. If you want to make honest comparison that is.
 
Skills said:
Nobody has played tennis at a higher level than Nadal at Roland Garros (seriously go back and watch what he did to Federer in the 2008 final).

Djokovic has played the best tennis over the course of a year (2011 and 2016/16) across all surfaces.

Federer was the most dominant over a longer period of time (2004 - 2007 Fed won 11/16 Slams).
Click to expand...

I find Djokovic's dominance far more impressive than Federer's.
The former did it in an era of Federer, Nadal and Murray.
Federer 04-07, well, we know what the field was like.
 
wr8_utd said:
I find Djokovic's dominance far more impressive than Federer's.
The former did it in an era of Federer, Nadal and Murray.
Federer 04-07, well, we know what the field was like.
Click to expand...

I also find Djokovic's feats more impressive than the other two. But they've each done things the other hasn't, so for me the debate is kind of futile at this point. They're the 3 best players to have ever picked up a tennis racket, and I don't think it's particularly close with the rest.

It's also worth noting that since about 2007 Federer was regarded as the greatest of all time. The fact, that two of them have even made it a conversation now is an incredible achievement.
 
wr8_utd said:
I find Djokovic's dominance far more impressive than Federer's.
The former did it in an era of Federer, Nadal and Murray.
Federer 04-07, well, we know what the field was like.
Click to expand...

This is such a bullshit statement to begin with. What was exactly Djokovic's supposed great field? Federer and Nadal had both injuries during the time or were way off their peak level. His biggest rival was Murray who will end up as a 3 times slam winner, Wawrinka who old Federer is 23-3 against and who else?
 
wr8_utd said:
Roger and Novak are exceptional hard court players and unfortunately those make up half the Slams that are played. I wish there was a parallel universe where clay was 2 of the 4 Slams. Imagine the numbers :drool:
Click to expand...

To be totally honest there should be just three slams, one for each surface and the rest of the tour should be split into 3 parts of the season.

That way you get a fair distribution of surfaces and find out who is the best all round player.
 
Raees said:
To be totally honest there should be just three slams, one for each surface and the rest of the tour should be split into 3 parts of the season.

That way you get a fair distribution of surfaces and find out who is the best all round player.
Click to expand...
4 with one on carpet for me. Sampras and Becker playing on carpet in the 90's was such a great sight :drool:
 
Enigma_87 said:
This is such a bullshit statement to begin with. What was exactly Djokovic's supposed great field? Federer and Nadal had both injuries during the time or were way off their peak level. His biggest rival was Murray who will end up as a 3 times slam winner, Wawrinka who old Federer is 23-3 against and who else?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I don't buy this argument of Novak playing injured Nadal/Fed or off peak versions.

That time around 2011-12 was just unbelievably frustrating as a Rafa fan when Novak beat Rafa in 7 straight finals and 3 of them being Grand Slams. Rafa himself was playing brilliant tennis and reaching the finals of pretty much everything but Novak was on an insanely high level.
Also over the past year, yes Rafa and Roger might be "old" but they're still playing very good tennis and Djokovic has again dominated the field (and let's not forget Novak himself is recovering from a major injury) , including beating Rafa twice along the way to these 3 Slams.
Novak's peak has been the scariest of the lot and he's a guy who's always had to deal with a difficult bunch of players. The very fact that his "easiest" rival was Andy Murray says it all.
 
Raees said:
To be totally honest there should be just three slams, one for each surface and the rest of the tour should be split into 3 parts of the season.

That way you get a fair distribution of surfaces and find out who is the best all round player.
Click to expand...
Yeah that would be pretty fair and they probably should have a longer grass season. The current schedule is skewed way too much in the favor of hard courts.
 
This thread is actually "why my guy is the greatest", with partisan fans continuously moving the goalposts around to claim the title for their favourite (or to move the title away from the person they dislike).

There will never be a consensus on this, as it's just way too subjective. Some prefer Federer's attacking and fluidity, some prefer Nadal's defence and grit, and that's far more important to the the people involved in the discussion than comparing their (both incredible) lists of achievements.
 
Enigma_87 said:
This is such a bullshit statement to begin with. What was exactly Djokovic's supposed great field? Federer and Nadal had both injuries during the time or were way off their peak level. His biggest rival was Murray who will end up as a 3 times slam winner, Wawrinka who old Federer is 23-3 against and who else?
Click to expand...

I think 2010-2013 Nadal was still pretty close to his peak, to be fair. The 6 hours USO final was a monstrous match.

Fed’s decline in physicality was pretty easy to see since the turn of the decade, he was still great but his baseline game deteriorated quite heavily with the loss of the forehand and he began to favour shorter points more and more with serve and volley + SABR.
 
wr8_utd said:
I'm sorry but I don't buy this argument of Novak playing injured Nadal/Fed or off peak versions.

That time around 2011-12 was just unbelievably frustrating as a Rafa fan when Novak beat Rafa in 7 straight finals and 3 of them being Grand Slams. Rafa himself was playing brilliant tennis and reaching the finals of pretty much everything but Novak was on an insanely high level.
Also over the past year, yes Rafa and Roger might be "old" but they're still playing very good tennis and Djokovic has again dominated the field, including beating Rafa twice along the way to these 3 Slams.
Novak's peak has been the scariest of the peak and he's a guy who's always had to deal with a difficult bunch of players. The very fact that his "easiest" rival was Andy Murray says it all.
Click to expand...

Well first off you need to decide which peak level of Djokovic are you considering.

From 2014 Wimbey till 2016 he won 6 out of 10 slams he competed in. Was #1 and won 6 masters in one season as well as posting his best season to date results.

During that time Nadal missed 2 slams, made it 2 times past the 4th round(2 QF's), was bagelled by Berdych in one of them and won zero sets in those QF's.

Federer on the other hand missed 2 slams. Finished 2016 at #16 - his career low so far and was miles off his best.

Federer is 5-1 against Murray in grand slams. Hardly Murray will cause him more trouble when he was actually at his peak at slams is it?

If you mean 2011 Djokovic - Federer (who again was off his peak) was 2 MP away from beating him in the 2 slams they've met.

In any case I'm not sure how you can consider Djokovic field to be better, especially 2014-2016.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
I think 2010-2013 Nadal was still pretty close to his peak, to be fair. The 6 hours USO final was a monstrous match.

Fed’s decline in physicality was pretty easy to see since the turn of the decade, he was still great but his baseline game deteriorated quite heavily with the loss of the forehand and he began to favour shorter points more and more with serve and volley + SABR.
Click to expand...

True, but Djokovic's peak surely has to be 2014-2016.

Agree on Fed's decline. Normally his peak level should help him beat Djokovic in those Wimbey/USO finals he lost to him.
 
Enigma_87 said:
4 with one on carpet for me. Sampras and Becker playing on carpet in the 90's was such a great sight :drool:
Click to expand...

Good shout but can someone explain carpet to me as a concept - what type of material was used and what type of game play did it generate?
 
Raees said:
Good shout but can someone explain carpet to me as a concept - what type of material was used and what type of game play did it generate?
Click to expand...

Grips off the surface, quick through the air I imagine (due to indoor).
 
Bojan11 said:
Why?

Regarding Nadal he’s been unlucky with injuries. Djokovic suffered one injury and look how long he took to recover.

Nadals been pretty decent in all the slams in the past 18 months, but not sure his knees can do two weeks of hardcourts. Petchey said it on commentary, but I hope Nadal reverts back to what he did at the AO for the rest of the year. He obviously doesn’t need to change it up for clay. But for other surfaces he needs to start thinking how to shorten points.
Click to expand...

I really can’t answer that question objectively in the sense that I don’t have a list of stats or facts to say why. It’s just purely my opinion on watching them all play throughout their careers.

Djokovic is insanely good don’t get me wrong but for some reason a tiny level below Nadal and Federer.

The thing about Nadal that hasn’t been mentioned though is that on clay, he broadly shreds everyone and it’s not even close.

On grass or hard courts, when he is on his game and makes the final, he usually still puts up a good fight and game.

I’ve always liked Nadal but Federer transcends the sport in the way Woods does for Golf. That has to be a factor when discussing GOAT.
 
Raees said:
Good shout but can someone explain carpet to me as a concept - what type of material was used and what type of game play did it generate?
Click to expand...

It's either woven or nylon textile surface that rolls on sheets. Imagine an open office space carpet.

It required big service game, quick reactions and lot of net play. It is similar to old grass - ball stays low and the bounce is fast. The surface itself is super quick.

The difference to grass is that the bounce is not irregular like on grass and you can predict it better making more clean shots.
 
Federer is the most graceful and pleasing on the eye sportsman I've ever seen. That he also plays attacking front foot tennis makes it even better. Personally, I'm going to struggle with tennis as a sport after being lucky enough to watch this absolute genius for the last 16 years. I'll still enjoy the spot as I did before he arrived on the scene, but can't see it being the same.

For me he's the greatest. The record titles. The aggresion. The all round brilliance. The style.

But you have to give it up to this incredible era of tennis players. There will be a void once they're all gone. To be fair, the standard has already dipped and been poor over the last few years.
 
As well as grand slams I also look at the weeks as the ATP no1
Federer...............310
Sampras.............286
Lendl..................270
Novak.................255
Nadal..................196

Between Federer, Djokovic and Nadal they have held the No1 spot for 761 weeks - thats over 14 and a half years and its perfectly conceivable that Novak and Nadal are going to rack up perhaps another couple of years between them (novak possibly even able to overtake Federer?)

its an amazing era to have all three playing at the same time and its hard to be anything other than ultimatley subjective about who is the best
For me Federer was the most dominant and as others have said played with a grace that seperates him from all others
Nadal just has such amazing power and undoubtedly is the best clay court player with the question of what could he have done without the injurys?
and Novak is just this amazing fighter to come through in the federer / nadal era and drag himself from an almost ran into a genuine competitor - of course his record since he changed his diet is great and could he have won more at a younger age if he had changed his diet earlier? - plus he looks like he could get close to federers 20 as does nadal

I think mens tennis is going to have a big slump when all three retire / are past it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.