But he had played on hard - the surfaces are linked, players who are good on hard are generally good on grass too. A "grass specialist" isn't truly a thing as grass courts are ultra expensive to maintain so the season will never be long enough.... he opened up the floodgates for proving once you get through the fast new grass into the more worn grass of the later rounds, serve and volley isn't the be all end all there. Although Hewitt was the first to show that on the new surface they used..... the first few days of Wimby are still fastest and most kindest to big servers.
Greatest mens tennis player of all time
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
But he had played on hard - the surfaces are linked, players who are good on hard are generally good on grass too. A "grass specialist" isn't truly a thing as grass courts are ultra expensive to maintain so the season will never be long enough.... he opened up the floodgates for proving once you get through the fast new grass into the more worn grass of the later rounds, serve and volley isn't the be all end all there. Although Hewitt was the first to show that on the new surface they used..... the first few days of Wimby are still fastest and most kindest to big servers.
You know what? I don't know
Just kidding, 23-22 to Djokovic. I see two more years of Nadal and Djokovic being the main players in Grand Slams, with Djokovic having the upper hand slightly, I'll go 3-1 to Djoko. A simplistic take of course because there will probably be outliers like injury, corona, Federer with one final Wimbledon for the ages, some new guy stepping up in one or two events doing a Wawrinka. But all in all I'd say these are the final tallies between them when their careers reach the end slam-wise. There WILL be a winner between them as they won't let it end in a tie, these guys will mentally will themselves to slug it out until one is on top.
You are the @Sarni of tennisI am quite sure Djokovic will be GOAT but it's going to be pretty amusing to see pundits, journalists and fans squirm and try and get out of "total Slams" as their primary parameter for judging who the GOAT is
He's an NBA viewer and supports Portland, he posts exactly the same. Clearly loves the team but always finds ways to be pessimistic and down on them.I think Thiem and Medvedev(provided he can stop losing in the first round) will be Novak's kryptonite in coming years, and Tsitsipas is probably going to challenge as well, which may run his slam count a little lower.
I see Nadal having one final life or death go at winning the AO or Wimbledon again.
Would be interesting, but I can see Fed stuck on 20, Novak ending on 21, and Nadal on 21.
Edit: I count the G.O.A.T as winner of the most slams. That is the result that counts at the end of the day.
I see Nadal having one final life or death go at winning the AO or Wimbledon again.
Would be interesting, but I can see Fed stuck on 20, Novak ending on 21, and Nadal on 21.
Edit: I count the G.O.A.T as winner of the most slams. That is the result that counts at the end of the day.
Some of the posts in the last page are so bad.
Soderling was an average player?
Guy remains the only person to have beaten an inform Nadal at the French, and was looking like the Wawrinka of his era until injuries ended his career.
Also there were plenty of random winners in that era between Sampras/Agassi declining and Federer and later Nadal rising.
Thomas Johansson, Petr Korda anyone?
TBH the only GS that consistently has good winners is the US open. The only winner in the past 4 decades that was a bit random was Cilic.
At least Nadal wins.
It is the Djokovic era and Nadal has won the same amount of GS in the past 2 years.
Soderling was an average player?
Guy remains the only person to have beaten an inform Nadal at the French, and was looking like the Wawrinka of his era until injuries ended his career.
Also there were plenty of random winners in that era between Sampras/Agassi declining and Federer and later Nadal rising.
Thomas Johansson, Petr Korda anyone?
TBH the only GS that consistently has good winners is the US open. The only winner in the past 4 decades that was a bit random was Cilic.
You are the @Sarni of tennis
At least Nadal wins.
It is the Djokovic era and Nadal has won the same amount of GS in the past 2 years.
This is pessimistically low for Nadal btw.
Leaving aside the FO, let's look at the other grand slams
USO - Winner, SF, Winner (last 3 appearances)
W - SF, SF (losses to Federer and Djokovic)
AO - 4R, F, 4R, F
He is not losing at the USO or W to players not called Djokovic or Federer.
AO is the only place where he can lose to random muppets on a bad day.
I still think he wins one more USO or W ; and he continues to win the FO as he long as his body doesn't break and he keeps his scheduling small.
Covid has been very good for prolonging both Nadal and Federer's careers. I think Roger also has one more GS win in him next year, coming back refreshed.
I think one of the most impressive things about Soderling is that he backed up his win against Nadal to also make the final, only losing to Federer. The following year, he then beat Federer and made the final but ending up losing to Nadal the following year.
I agree, but I think age is catching up with him much faster now.
I want him to win them all, and cement his status as G.O.A.T, but I think it's becoming increasingly difficult for him.
As it has for Novak. While the record implies he's been unbeatable up until RG final, I think he's been far more vulnerable this season than previously.
Agreed. Del Potro's USO still remains one of the pinnacle GS wins of all time in my book.
You had to beat not one but two GOAT candidates in their prime to win a GS in that era. Soderling had a shot twice is a testament to his abilities.
Soderling like Wawrinka would have picked up a slam if he didn’t retire at 26. It might have even been the French when Nadal was out of form between 2015 and 2016.
He was playing with mono and still won his last tournament.
He was playing with mono and still won his last tournament.
Out of all - I'd say Rafter-Rusedski is the most absurd final in my history - yes Rafter backed it up with another tame win albeit beating Sampras and some runs at Wimbledon..... but in 97, they beat a grand total of 1 seeded player between them(Changy baby) - what a wild time for Tennis.
Although then again, the most random thing ever.... is Henman's 04 RG run, and give the so called "future of clay" Coria a run for his money - what a wild time for Tennis.
Although then again, the most random thing ever.... is Henman's 04 RG run, and give the so called "future of clay" Coria a run for his money - what a wild time for Tennis.
Nadal does very well at both the AO and W even though he's not won there in ages. He'd clearly forgotten how to play at W but his last two runs have been impressive and he's only lost to the only two players better than him on the surface. If he can finally get a draw where he doesn't have Federer or Novak in his half, who knows, he could make another final. I've given up on the AO for Rafa. Feels like the most cursed slam for him where he either gets injured during the tournament, misses it altogether or has heartbreaking losses in finals. He's still better than anyone not named Djokovic or Federer but he'll again need a kind draw and some luck to go his way. Can definitely see him win another USO though.
Btw, the slams should be the barometer. Big tennis players like Sampras have always lived by it, they know the importance of it. Fans can have their own favorite, their personal opinion, but generally the tennis scene will accept the player with most slams as the best, regardless whether you think has the best style, most talent, whatever. It has always been like that and brought up regularly in GOAT conversations when Sampras and later Federer ruled this statistic.
Slams are where the big stars give their all and more, all the tournaments they play up to it in the run up are just to prepare them mentally and physically for the 4 dates on the tennis calendar each year. Especially for the big three the other tournaments have nearly been the equivalent of pre-season in football.
Just look at the consistency of the big three this decade and a half in grand slams. This very consistency (without googling I'd bet only 3 or 4 players other than the big three have won a slam in the past 10-15 years... with only Wawrinka actually beating any of the big three) proves the best rise to the top in these events, slugging it out over two weeks in best of fives (less chance of upsets as the better player has more time to come back) under more scrutiny and pressure. So naturally the one of the big three who come out on top in these events most is the best.
Grand Slams are set up to be the barometer of where a player's position and legacy is in this sport.
Slams are where the big stars give their all and more, all the tournaments they play up to it in the run up are just to prepare them mentally and physically for the 4 dates on the tennis calendar each year. Especially for the big three the other tournaments have nearly been the equivalent of pre-season in football.
Just look at the consistency of the big three this decade and a half in grand slams. This very consistency (without googling I'd bet only 3 or 4 players other than the big three have won a slam in the past 10-15 years... with only Wawrinka actually beating any of the big three) proves the best rise to the top in these events, slugging it out over two weeks in best of fives (less chance of upsets as the better player has more time to come back) under more scrutiny and pressure. So naturally the one of the big three who come out on top in these events most is the best.
Grand Slams are set up to be the barometer of where a player's position and legacy is in this sport.
Last edited:
Yeah that whole period was so random (late 97- early 04).
The guy kept bringing up Gaudio and Costa but it was just symptomatic of that era with Johanssen and Korda amongst other random Slam winners.
Between Sampras losing the #1 ranking in March 1998, the #1 ranking changed hands 26 times until Federer took it in Feb 2004.
Less than 6 years, 26 (!) times the ATP #1 changed. 10 different holders of #1 ranking.
Just to put that in context, since Federer first took over the #1 ranking in Feb 2004, in almost 17 years, we have had 4 different holders of the #1.
I'm not entirely certain this is overly true - while it's a bigger thing to discuss it now more openly - Sampras never had the 'GOAT' thing that Federer had, which Federer has had more or less since well before he won 14 anyway. Even when it was discussed Laver, Borg and hell even Agassi due to his Career Slam all had their fans. It's never been clear cut - maybe only for about 2-3 years or so with Federer between maybe 07-10.... but even then people had the Nadal issue over him.
Nadal reasonably needs another AO
Djokovic reasonably needs another RG
Preferably while beating each other.... watch both circumstances happen next year just to feck it all up and then both end up on 23 - you know, MJ's number, just to be wilding.
Huh? I have to totally disagree with you. Maybe we perceived the era totally different during our childhoods. GOAT wasn't a term yet back in the days but Sampras was regarded and spoken of as the best ever when he reached most slams. Just as with Federer, even before he got the 14th he was already being talked as the ruler of that era and maybe the best ever. When I watched televised games of sampras, the commentators on my tv spoke of him and his achievement that way, pundits and ex pro legends as well.
Tennis is a sport I have followed before football, I devoured information about it starting around 92 (less so after 2010s). Federer only started to have goat status in the scene when it became clear it was only a matter of time before he would break the record. Yeah there will always be a minority who will disagree (Federer being doubted by a group because he was dominated by Nadal for a long time, Sampras because he did not win the french open and had some who said it was Borg or Laver), but you get that with everything in life.
Nadal and Djokovic don't need anything other than ending up with the most slams. Especially Djokovic who has held four slams at the same time at one point, that is such an Ultimate Boss achievement. Even harder than winning every slam at least once. And in general his slams are as well spread out as Federer's, with the difference that most of his titles are won in Australia whereas Federer's are at Wimbledon.
If we go by the above logic Federer has it all to prove and needs one more French Open. One win there where he avoided Nadal.
Last edited:
Who had the best peak out of the three?
Beautiful shade thrown here.
I only brought up those guys in the context of the claim that winning the French is harder than other slams.
We're likely to get something closer to that era after the big 3 retire (see the ongoing women's tour). I'm not sure if that's necessarily a bad thing. It could be refreshing to go into a Grand Slam thinking that anyone from a pool of 10 players could win it instead of just 2.
A stat I saw about Federer, Nadal and Djokovic is that they are the only male players who made at least five finals at all of the Grand Slams.
What's scary is that if any of these three played during a time when they weren't in competition with the other two, they could have each wound up with up to 40 slam victories.
Novak 2011 & 2015 were very strong, as was Rafa 2010.
However if we look at a 2-3 stretch of dominance, nothing matches Federer's peak. He won 8 slams from Wimbledon 2005 through US Open 2007.
Does anyone see Federer winning at least 1 more GS?
.How do you rate Wawrika's stint between 2014-2017. Some of the tennis he played , albeit ultimately relatively short lived was probably the most unplayable to be up against. If memory serves me correctly, at the US Open in parrticular. He never lost a grand slam final against the No1 player in the world in sharp contrast to Murray for example. And he won 11 consecutive finals! For a time at least he was the best player in the world.
I think it's possible. He should have won Wimbledon last year and is still a very good player, especially on grass. I think he will need his draw to open up at the US Open or in Australia, but he's still has a reasonable chance.
One last run at Wimbledon imo if he can comeback o.k. His level at Wimbledon 2019 was fantastic imo bar the serving on match points of course....
Also won 2 of the last 4 Aussie Opens he's played although likely too much to expect him to get to final given he won't have played for a year. Can't see him doing anything at US as he's usually gassed at that time of the year, hasn't won it since 2008.
Interesting reading the last few pages. I'll always say Federer due to his style of what I love about a Tennis player but in recent years I've come to hugely respect Nadal's ridiculous never say die mentality on a tennis court. Difficult to say Fed if Nadal gets to 22 or 23 slams which he could easily do winnig RG until he's 37-38. Can't see Djokovic getting to that figure. You're asking a near 34 year old to have to win another 5-6 slams which will be very tough.
No one thinking Thiem could have similar path to Murray and win a few more slams after getting his first one in mid 20s? He's been pretty consistant in last year getting to the final of the two hardcourt slams he's played and reached 2/3 last FO finals. This year it was tougher due to quick turnaround between US-FO.
I get the feeling he'll deny Djokovic another slam or two before his career is out.
Nadal demolished him in FO 2017 final (similar to yesterday) although can't remember where in rankings Nadal was at the time.
Stan though has one of the most beautiful shots in Tennis when that backhand is firing. Arguably Djokovic's toughest match up on tour aswell given the tennis lessons he's dished out in two of the slam finals he's won.
Federer is nearly 40 so may well be done winning majors but you never know.
With Nadal it will probably depend on how well his knees hold up. Djokovic is the youngest so probably should be favourite to win the most majors but I wonder if his slide into anti-vax nutbaggery is partly responsible for his current state?
With Nadal it will probably depend on how well his knees hold up. Djokovic is the youngest so probably should be favourite to win the most majors but I wonder if his slide into anti-vax nutbaggery is partly responsible for his current state?
Probably in a third tier below the big three plus Connors 74 (tier 1) and players like Sampras 94, Agassi 99, Wilander 88, McEnroe 81 , Lendl 86-87 and others (tier 2), then tier 3 would be the likes of Wawrinka, perhaps Murray 2016,
Federer will most definitely win one more Wimbledon imo. He's still the second best player on the surface after Novak and all he needs is one season where an upset occurs and someone takes out Novak before the final.
his last chance to both win #21, which would have given him a decent lead over rafa, kept novak way off , been his only slam beating both rafa and novak, and just an extraoridinary acheivement at age 39, was wimbledon 2019, but he blew 2 match points on his own serve, got broken for the first time all match, and lost in 3 tiebreaks.
They've been saying that since 2008, but 12 years later he still looks as good as ever. He'll end up with more slams than Federer I reckon.
Probably. But he obviously has chronic knee issues and has expressed concern about how they will hold up post-tennis, so I think he may walk away due to them at some point when he is younger than Federer now is.
Interesting analysis which quantifies what many on here have highlighted: after adjusting for opposition quality, Nadal's 20 is better than Federer's 20.
Confident Novak catches and overtakes them both on slams.
Djokovic is only one year younger and he’s been having a few problems with his shoulder. All three have a good chance of winning more slams as long as they keep matches to 3 or 4 sets before reaching a final and more importantly stay healthy. Djokovic most likely still would have lost, but those two extra sets against Tsitipas when he had match points in the third didn’t help.
You also need the luck of a good draw. Nadals draw at AO wasn’t great. Kyrgios obviously is going to show up and try his hardest. He lost to Thiem in 3 tie breaks after that.
It is why these new young guys can’t win slams. They come into slams gassed after playing too many four or five set matches in the earlier rounds. Thiem was lucky that Djokovic got defaulted. He was tired in the final and Zverev choking helped him. Djokovic would not have been that kind.
Federer can win another Wimbledon as he’s still currently second best player on grass. He just needs someone to take out Djokovic for him. Djokovic is obviously stand out favourite for AO and Nadal for French. US open is the one that’s most open. We haven’t had a Nadal vs Djokovic match there in a while and never had Nadal vs Federer there at all. People downplay Nadals ability there, but he’s won 4 US opens, so I would put him joint favourite with Novak for that.
One person I feel sorry for is Andy Murray and I hope he can get back to his best for one more swan song in his career. He has had the worst injury out of the lot and things were looking up for him when he got that injury as he was world number 1, won Wimbledon, Olympics and tour finals.
Surely worth a bump?
Incredible stuff from the anti-vaxxer
Incredible stuff from the anti-vaxxer
It's Djokovic
Greatest Hard Court player of all time, 2nd greatest Clay Court player of all time & probably 3rd-4th greatest Grass Courter of all time too.
Greatest Hard Court player of all time, 2nd greatest Clay Court player of all time & probably 3rd-4th greatest Grass Courter of all time too.
Nice bump. Called it 9 years ago 