Why isn't Borg in these discussions? Career length?
Greatest mens tennis player of all time
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Borg I think was recognised as the greatest till about 2007 when Federer usurped him. I think Federer has just added to his legacy since and both Rafa and Novak have overtaken him too.
See in this way you're going to explain away every time Novak has dominated by Federer being off peak. Federer's absolute peak came at a time when Rafa and Novak were still kids and yet in that 05-08 period they were both giving Federer a run for their money in their H2H matches and in Rafa's case, even beating him at Roger's favorite surfaces.
The "off peak" Roger Federer is still probably Top 3 GOAT contender and he was really making Novak work for the wins even in the 2011-12 phase and even beat him a decent amount of times including Wimbledon and RG if I'm not wrong. If not for Novak, there's a good chance Federer would be on something like 23 Slams right now.
As for peak Novak, I find his 2011-12 version the biggest because he's had to get past Federer multiple times and he's beaten Rafa at all the Slam finals. Beating Rafa 7 FINALS in a row is a staggering achievement given how good Rafa is at finals.
I'm not sure your argument there. Djokovic peak came later in 2015 and 2016. He won most of his slams then and broke most of his records then. Having great results doesn't particularly mean his best years came in 2011 don't you agree?
Federer in 2016 played 28 matches in total, that was his worst year since 15-20 years ago. Nadal was close to non existent after 2014 FO up until 2017 AO at slams.
If you come with this bullshit weak era argument, then Novak's era was even worse from 2014 on. He won 9 of his 15 slams from 2014 on.
Unfortunately yes. Fantastic credentials and also game especially being able to dominate 2 surfaces, but his career length doesn't do him much favor.
I've no clue about tennis but wanted to ask: why is McEnroe rarely mentioned in GOAT discussions? See, I've always read that he was a 'maverick genius' (even very recently he's the subject of a documentary about his search for tennis perfection).
Thanks.
Thanks.
Novak has had to beat a Rafa in imperious form in 2 of his last 3 Slam wins. If that's a weak field, I'm not sure what to call pulverizing the likes of Roddick, Hewitt, Gonzalez and Bagdatis in finals of Slams..
There was an interesting article around 2 years ago about difficultly of Slams for the Top 3 :
This is something I've always said. Out of the Top 3, Novak has had it toughest in terms of the field he's been up against.
Also, I agree that maybe in 2015, the lack of Federer and Nadal helped but Murray was still in very good form at that point. Anyway, that's just one of his 3 big runs where he's had a comparatively easy run.
I'm not sure if you read what I've wrote above. Your first quote was this:
Djokovic's dominance was from 14-16 where he won most of his slams. I wouldn't call one year 11' a dominance, especially since after that he didn't win more than 1 slam per year up until his actual dominance.
How Federer's field in 04-07 was weak compared to Djokovic 14-16?
15 years ago surfaces were more diverse than now. Wimbledon got slower and slower.
This quote also means absolutely nothing to back up your original claim that Djokovic's peak came against a tougher field.
During his peak years(14-16) he met Nadal twice at slams - won once and lost once.
Federer - 4 times in majors and Federer was undoubtedly a lot worse than his usual(peak) self at the time.
I think Djokovic in 2011 was the best version we've seen of him. This discussion will always be premature because they are all still playing at a high level but if they all finish with the same number of slams I'd consider Novak the GOAT (should other factors outside of the slams not change much)
Nah, I think the 2015/2016 he was more complete and IMO better at both clay and grass. He improved on those surfaces whilst kept his level on hard.
2015 was probably the more complete version of Djokovic but I think 2011 was just more impressive with the players he was beating.
so far it's Fed, but obviously it won't end like this. let's say all three of them end their careers with 20 grand slams total, this his how I'd look at them:
Djokovic - for me, he would be the GOAT in that case. but the thing is, I'd consider him as the greatest even if he's on 19 grand slams and Fed is on 20. for me, total number of slams is deciding factor when we compare 15 vs 20, but if it comes down to only one GS between them, I'd have to take everything else into account. Djokovic's path to those grand slams and the rivals he had, the fact he's the only one who has won every ATP masters tournament and there's good chance he'll end career as the one who has won the most of them in the history of tennis. he's also one ATP tour finals title away from having the most of them (will be tied with Fed), not to mention better head to head with Nadal and Fed. he would have almost everything on his side in that case so for me, he would be the greatest.
Nadal - imo, he needs to win one more than Djoko and Fed to be considered as the greatest. otherwise he'll "only" be equal to them. it's a popular thing to say that he wins mostly on one surface, but there's another way to look at that; he proved he can beat both Djoko and Fed on grass and other hard courts, but they never did the same. that's why I consider his peak level to be higher than both Roger's and Novak's. he could beat peak Fed in Wimbledon - Fed was never good enough to do the same in RG. he was just untouchable there. he will always have that against both of them and currently have the most ATP masters titles. but like I've said, while I could consider Novak as GOAT even with 19 grand slams, among three of them Rafa is the only one I think that needs to have the most grand slams at the end of his career to be considered as undisputedly the greatest of all time.
Djokovic - for me, he would be the GOAT in that case. but the thing is, I'd consider him as the greatest even if he's on 19 grand slams and Fed is on 20. for me, total number of slams is deciding factor when we compare 15 vs 20, but if it comes down to only one GS between them, I'd have to take everything else into account. Djokovic's path to those grand slams and the rivals he had, the fact he's the only one who has won every ATP masters tournament and there's good chance he'll end career as the one who has won the most of them in the history of tennis. he's also one ATP tour finals title away from having the most of them (will be tied with Fed), not to mention better head to head with Nadal and Fed. he would have almost everything on his side in that case so for me, he would be the greatest.
Nadal - imo, he needs to win one more than Djoko and Fed to be considered as the greatest. otherwise he'll "only" be equal to them. it's a popular thing to say that he wins mostly on one surface, but there's another way to look at that; he proved he can beat both Djoko and Fed on grass and other hard courts, but they never did the same. that's why I consider his peak level to be higher than both Roger's and Novak's. he could beat peak Fed in Wimbledon - Fed was never good enough to do the same in RG. he was just untouchable there. he will always have that against both of them and currently have the most ATP masters titles. but like I've said, while I could consider Novak as GOAT even with 19 grand slams, among three of them Rafa is the only one I think that needs to have the most grand slams at the end of his career to be considered as undisputedly the greatest of all time.
That statement is contradictory
yeah, a bit. what I wanted to say is that if he had the most grand slams, at least that's something you couldn't take away from him. but if they're all on 20, plenty would still point on Djokovic's better head to head record, much better record on other courts, much better record at ATP finals etc. there would still be plenty to dispute in that case, not to mention that other than that "freak" US open win in 2017, he hasn't won GS other than RG for about 7 or 8 years. he has also never won the ATP finals. the way it's going, Novak has most of the stats going in his favour and there would be less to dispute in his case if they're both on 20 for example.
See, the issue I have with this supposedly weak/strong field is that players peak at different times and can beat whoever is in front of them. You can always pluck holes in each of those greats resumes as hardly their career overlapped(especially in Federer's case as he's much younger than them).
Djokovic was certainly a better player after 2011 as he developed and improved his game.
Federer for aestethics, Djokovic for peak invincibility, Nadal on clay.
Will Federer still be considered goat if he ends up behind the other two on slams? Think the order will be Djoko, Rafa and Federer.
I personally don't think he would be.
I’ll always have a soft spot for Borg; Dominant on clay and grass unlike any of the current ‘big three’; didn’t bother with the Australian Open which didn’t help his Grand Slam count & retired at only 26.
Of the current trio, I’d say Djokovic is arguably the best. He has beaten Federer in all three finals the two men have played at Wimbledon, which is Federer’s best tournament. Djokovic is also one of two men to have beaten Rafa at the French Open where he is nigh on invincible.
...and he ain’t done yet. Federer almost is.
Of the current trio, I’d say Djokovic is arguably the best. He has beaten Federer in all three finals the two men have played at Wimbledon, which is Federer’s best tournament. Djokovic is also one of two men to have beaten Rafa at the French Open where he is nigh on invincible.
...and he ain’t done yet. Federer almost is.
I'm not sure who's the best of the three, but Federer is comfortably the best to watch. Novak is just boringly brilliant sometimes in comparison.
Also peak Federer would've won that yesterday. He probably deserved it anyway, but Novak's got nerves of absolute steel.
Also peak Federer would've won that yesterday. He probably deserved it anyway, but Novak's got nerves of absolute steel.
Federer was a strong first serve away from sealing it yesterday. Well not sealing it, but it would've made his case that much stronger.
Fine fecking margins.
Fine fecking margins.
Think Sampras would beat this current 3. Especially based on their poor performances this Wimbledon.
He had a strong first serve on that second match point to be fair. But as you say the margins are just incredible.
Ah right, Djoko hit that passing shot.
Gah it would be great to see a prime Sampras and Agassi against prime Fed / Rafa / Novak
I will say John McEnroe. He may not have won as many titles as others you can name, but he was simply the finest tennis player I have seen.
My father always though Rod Laver as the greatest.
My father always though Rod Laver as the greatest.
Well, it would be a strong case specially for Djokovic if he overtakes Federer in Grand Slams.
Agassi would get butchered.
Nah. He’d be quite alright at the Aussie and the USO. Probably the only service returner better than him is Djokovic. His peak didn’t last nearly as long because of his personal life, but when he was at his peak, he could play with anybody.
Last edited:
I think you'd have to weigh up how many finals fed lost against the opponents etc.
Fed is best player ever taken how many finals he's most too
What?
I swear people underrate some of the past players.
Agassi more than Sampras would give them a match because the courts suit his style of play unlike back then. Also people go on about Federer being old man doing well. Agassi in 2005 at 35 pushed Federer who was like 23 at the time to four sets in the US open final. He would far from get butchered in his prime.
I don't follow closely enough to have an opinion on this but I'm pretty sure Henman was the greatest tennis player ever.
Well he wasn't called Tiger Tim for no reason. Pound for pound he was the most complete tennis ball player of all time.
Definitely not. The person who leads in slams will almost certainly be viewed as the greatest tennis player ever (with the other two viewed as very close behind).
I don't disagree but don't underestimate Federer's massive cult following.
Stan Smith. Original logo icon.
IMO a 35 year old Federer wouldn’t push a 23 year old Agassi to 4 sets. He’d beat him in 4.
Probably not the best age to pick for Federer there. He was on a 4 year Slam drought and recovering from knee surgery and a back injury at 35.
And I say that as a Federer fan.
Well that’s just stupid logic. I’m going by the games they actually played not by your fairy tale logic. Agassi at 35 gave Federer a game in a season where Federer only suffered four losses.
So to say he’d get butchered is silly because the courts nowadays suit his game more and he pushed Federer in his prime when he was well past his prime. Sampras is more likely to struggle in the current era as most of the courts aren’t really for serve and volley.