Greatest mens tennis player of all time

amolbhatia50k said:
It's hardly the same thing. It's more like Messi vs Maradona vs Pele with one being comfortably the easiest on the eye. Whether it adds to greatness is up for debate, but then this whole race/comparison is extremely so. I think it plays a part in one's greatness for sure. Barcelona under Pep captured people's imagination the way Real Madrid under Zidane couldn't. I'm obviously a huge Federer fan, but one of the reasons is because he is truly a joy to watch. No other sportsman I'd rather watch in full flight, with Messi being second, probably. Grace, aggressive front-foot tennis, big serve, one-handed backhand, brilliant forehand, love it. I'd love to have to have seen Federer on faster courts where he would be able to dominate more from the net rather than always live in fear of being passed with the time and space you now have at the baseline.
Click to expand...

With those group of football players because they never went directly head to head it is harder to separate so things like the skill factor play a bigger role.

In tennis we have seen these guys directly compete and assuming Djoko goes past these guys in slam numbers and creates a distance (atm he has not so he is not the undisputed GOAT for now) - he is the best because he is the one more likely to win - when facing the other guys on a variety of surfaces.

I think Federer himself would be embarrassed if he saw that his claim to greatness or best of all time rested heavily on his aesthetic quality rather than his actual ability to win a tennis match.

I wouldn’t rule out these champions finding one more gear to take Djoko out because the competitor in them will not want to take this lying down but yeah, I do not think aesthetics should trump ‘winning’. If you have in theory the most stylish and entertaining tennis player and he’s losing quite regularly to player B who is boring - you wouldn’t be justified in still calling him the greater player.

The only time aesthetics should come into play is if both players have equal level of achievements and generally equal head to head record. For now, they’re all still on par and Djoko could get a career ending injury tomorrow but if ends up on say 5 more slams than the other two - it is going to be a weak argument for the Federer camp to say but we played the more memorable tennis.
 
2mufc0 said:
That last Wimbledon final really hurt Fed's claim, I really don't know how he lost it and probably will be one of his biggest regrets.

It tipped it to Novak's favour for me after that game.
Click to expand...

I think he'd have bowed out had he won that to be honest. It would have been perfect.
 
GuyfromAustria said:
Imagine the numbers one of those 3 guys could have racked up if the other 2 didn't exist and if he managed to keep up the form and motivation for so long without their competition.
e: damn, 2 minutes late. :D
Click to expand...
A little bored, but I've looked into this the SFs/Finals they lost to each other and done some predictions on projected finals or SFs. I tried to throw in some defeats as well.

Djokovic - 9 more majors
RG 07: Davydenko def Djokovic
W 07: Berdych def Djokovic (SF) (Djokovic retired injured vs Nadal)
RG 08: Djokovic def Monfils (+1)
US 08: Djokovic def Murray (+2)
US 09: Del Potro def Djokovic
US 10: Djokovic def Youzhny (+3)
RG 11: Djokovic def Murray (+4)
RG 12: Djokovic def Ferrer (+5)
W 12: Murray def Djokovic
RG 13: Djokovic def Ferrer (+6)
US 13: Djokovic def Gasquet (+7)
RG 14: Djokovic def Murray (+8)
RG 20: Djokovic def Schwartzman (+9)

Federer - 16 more majors
RG 05 - Federer def Puerta (+1)
RG 06 - Federer def Ljubicic (+2)
RG 07 - Federer def Moya (+3)
AO 08 - Federer def Tsonga (+4)
RG 08: Federer def Almagro (+5)
W 08: Federer def Schuttler (+6)
AO 09: Federer def Verdasco (+7)
US 10: Federer def Youzhny (+8)
AO 11: Federer def Murray (+9)
RG 11: Federer def Murray (+10)
US 11: Federer def Murray (+11)
AO 12: Murray def Federer
RG 12: Federer def Ferrer (+12)
AO 14: Wawrinka def Federer
W 14: Federer def Dimitrov (+13)
W 15: Federer def Gasquet (+14)
US 15: Federer def Cilic (+15)
AO 16: Murray def Federer
W 16: Murray def Federer
W 19: Federer def RBA (+16)
RG 19: Thiem def Federer
AO 20: Theim def Federer (Federer was injured)

Nadal: 9 more majors
W 06: Nadal def Bjorkman (+1)
W 07: Nadal def Gasquet (+2)
W 11: Nadal def Tsonga (+3)
US 11: Nadal def Tsonga (+4)
AO 12: Nadal def Murray (+5)
AO 17: Nadal def Warinka (+6)
W 18: Nadal def Anderson (+7)
W 19: Nadal def RBA (+8)
RG 21: Nadal def Tsitsipas (+9)
 
amolbhatia50k said:
It's hardly the same thing. It's more like Messi vs Maradona vs Pele with one being comfortably the easiest on the eye. Whether it adds to greatness is up for debate, but then this whole race/comparison is extremely so. I think it plays a part in one's greatness for sure. Barcelona under Pep captured people's imagination the way Real Madrid under Zidane couldn't. I'm obviously a huge Federer fan, but one of the reasons is because he is truly a joy to watch. No other sportsman I'd rather watch in full flight, with Messi being second, probably. Grace, aggressive front-foot tennis, big serve, one-handed backhand, brilliant forehand, love it. I'd love to have to have seen Federer on faster courts where he would be able to dominate more from the net rather than always live in fear of being passed with the time and space you now have at the baseline.
Click to expand...
It is the same thing. You are extrapolating sports romanticism like grace, effortlessness, imgination, creativity and diminishing the more the objective criterias. He used Ronaldinho as anexample because that is essentially what you are trying to do.

And this isn't the same as football. All 3 of them played exclusively in an 1 v 1 sport and played each other in the same era. It really tough to make an argument for someone who gets consistently beat by the other two. Unlike football where we can talk round in circles about hypotheticals and football being a team game consisting of 11 players.
 
thepolice123 said:
It is the same thing. You are extrapolating sports romanticism like grace, effortlessness, imgination, creativity and diminishing the more the objective criterias. He used Ronaldinho as anexample because that is essentially what you are trying to do.

And this isn't the same as football. All 3 of them played exclusively in an 1 v 1 sport and played each other in the same era. It really tough to make an argument for someone who gets consistently beat by the other two. Unlike football where we can talk round in circles about hypotheticals and football being a team game consisting of 11 players.
Click to expand...
We're talking about greatness not just success (remember Federer and Nadal still lead there) though. I'm not diminishing anything, just saying it plays it's part. Give me an an exciting and equally successful football team anyday over Mourinho's boring but effective Chelsea. My counter point was that this isn't Ronaldhinio vs Messi. The margins are miniscule here whereas they are enormous there.
 
thepolice123 said:
It is the same thing. You are extrapolating sports romanticism like grace, effortlessness, imgination, creativity and diminishing the more the objective criterias. He used Ronaldinho as anexample because that is essentially what you are trying to do.

And this isn't the same as football. All 3 of them played exclusively in an 1 v 1 sport and played each other in the same era. It really tough to make an argument for someone who gets consistently beat by the other two. Unlike football where we can talk round in circles about hypotheticals and football being a team game consisting of 11 players.
Click to expand...
That's a bit much. Djokovic - Federer is 27–23. with some incredibly close matches. Federer used to have a great record against Djokovic but as he aged it turned in Djokovic's favour. My guess is they met more post 2009/10 as before that Djokovic wasn't making as many semis and finals whereas as Federer aged he continued to reach the latter stages of tournament. Nadal Federer is clear, the former had Federer's number, although Federer did turn it around recently and was seemingly on a winning run against him only for them to stop meeting but yeah, he turned it around too late for it to matter. It was also a tough matchup. He was stylistically Federer's krytonite with the top spin into the one handed backhand, especially on the slower surfaces. Djokovic has the edge on head to heads among the three of them, but I don't think this bolded bit is apt.
 
R'hllor said:
Holy shit the amount of bs towards Nadal/Djokovic, its like Federer is some kind of ballet dancer and other two are unloading trucks in Transylvania.
Click to expand...
Nice analogy :lol:
It really seems like that. "Moving with grace" and such nonesense.

At least say that you like someone with a better serve or something like that.
 
saivet said:
A little bored, but I've looked into this the SFs/Finals they lost to each other and done some predictions on projected finals or SFs. I tried to throw in some defeats as well.

Djokovic - 9 more majors
RG 07: Davydenko def Djokovic
W 07: Berdych def Djokovic (SF) (Djokovic retired injured vs Nadal)
RG 08: Djokovic def Monfils (+1)
US 08: Djokovic def Murray (+2)
US 09: Del Potro def Djokovic
US 10: Djokovic def Youzhny (+3)
RG 11: Djokovic def Murray (+4)
RG 12: Djokovic def Ferrer (+5)
W 12: Murray def Djokovic
RG 13: Djokovic def Ferrer (+6)
US 13: Djokovic def Gasquet (+7)
RG 14: Djokovic def Murray (+8)
RG 20: Djokovic def Schwartzman (+9)

Federer - 16 more majors
RG 05 - Federer def Puerta (+1)
RG 06 - Federer def Ljubicic (+2)
RG 07 - Federer def Moya (+3)
AO 08 - Federer def Tsonga (+4)
RG 08: Federer def Almagro (+5)
W 08: Federer def Schuttler (+6)
AO 09: Federer def Verdasco (+7)
US 10: Federer def Youzhny (+8)
AO 11: Federer def Murray (+9)
RG 11: Federer def Murray (+10)
US 11: Federer def Murray (+11)
AO 12: Murray def Federer
RG 12: Federer def Ferrer (+12)
AO 14: Wawrinka def Federer
W 14: Federer def Dimitrov (+13)
W 15: Federer def Gasquet (+14)
US 15: Federer def Cilic (+15)
AO 16: Murray def Federer
W 16: Murray def Federer
W 19: Federer def RBA (+16)
RG 19: Thiem def Federer
AO 20: Theim def Federer (Federer was injured)

Nadal: 9 more majors
W 06: Nadal def Bjorkman (+1)
W 07: Nadal def Gasquet (+2)
W 11: Nadal def Tsonga (+3)
US 11: Nadal def Tsonga (+4)
AO 12: Nadal def Murray (+5)
AO 17: Nadal def Warinka (+6)
W 18: Nadal def Anderson (+7)
W 19: Nadal def RBA (+8)
RG 21: Nadal def Tsitsipas (+9)
Click to expand...
How many for Murray out of interest?
 
altodevil said:
How many for Murray out of interest?
Click to expand...
Depends on who we are wiping from the records :lol:

Without all three of them and looking at results where he made QF or better I'm going for...
W 08: Murray def Safin (+1)
US 08: Murray def Roddick (+2)
AO 10: Murray def Tsonga (+3)
W 10: Murray def Berdych (+4)
AO 11: Berdych def Murray (!!!)
W 11: Murray def Tsonga (+5)
RG 11: Monfils def Murray (!!!)
US 11: Murray def Tsonga (+6)
AO 12: Murray def Berdych (+7)
W 12: Murray def Youzhny (+8)
AO 13: Murray def Ferrer (+9)
US 14: Cilic def Murray
RG 14: Ferrer def Murray (SF)
AO 14: Wawrinka def Murray
AO 15: Murray def Wawrinka (+10)
RG 15: Wawrinka def Murray (some rivalry :D)
W 15: Murray def Gasquet (+11)
AO 16: Murrary def Berdych (+12)
RG 16: Murray def Thiem (+13 and a career slam)

Berdych and Tsonga his biggest rivals
 
Daysleeper said:
djokovic
Click to expand...

Djokovic's greatest strength is his mental toughness, which is not something that can be taught. Its simply a personality trait of the individual that gets developed through the mindset of their personal experiences and training.
 
Raoul said:
Djokovic's greatest strength is his mental toughness, which is not something that can be taught. Its simply a personality trait of the individual that gets developed through the mindset of their personal experiences and training.
Click to expand...

Of course mental strength can be taught, as a former soldier you should know that

"developed through training" = can be taught
 
Raoul said:
Djokovic's greatest strength is his mental toughness, which is not something that can be taught. Its simply a personality trait of the individual that gets developed through the mindset of their personal experiences and training.
Click to expand...

You are right Djokovic's mental strength is amazing wasn't Djokovic bit of a soft touch in early part of his career so definitely he has developed it to an extent where it's become another weapon on the court against most opponents.
 
Raoul said:
The military teaches something completely different than the sort of protracted mental focus required to dominate tennis rallies.
Click to expand...

Positive psychology is of increasing interest in the military.

In November 2008, when the legendary General George W. Casey, Jr., the army chief of staff and former commander of the multinational force in Iraq, asked me what positive psychology had to say about soldiers’ problems, I offered a simple answer: How human beings react to extreme adversity is normally distributed. On one end are the people who fall apart into PTSD, depression, and even suicide. In the middle are most people, who at first react with symptoms of depression and anxiety but within a month or so are, by physical and psychological measures, back where they were before the trauma. That is resilience. On the other end are people who show post-traumatic growth. They, too, first experience depression and anxiety, often exhibiting full-blown PTSD, but within a year they are better off than they were before the trauma. .

A team led by the University of Michigan professor Christopher Peterson, author of the Values in Action signature strengths survey, created the test, called the Global Assessment Tool (GAT). It is a 20-minute questionnaire that focuses on strengths rather than weaknesses and is designed to measure four things: emotional, family, social, and spiritual fitness. All four have been credited with reducing depression and anxiety. According to research, they are the keys to PERMA.
Click to expand...

If you listen to Federer's basic advice in Laver Cup here, it is the same thing:

 
gajender said:
You are right Djokovic's mental strength is amazing wasn't Djokovic bit of a soft touch in early part of his career so definitely he has developed it to an extent where it's become another weapon on the court against most opponents.
Click to expand...

He's generally always been this way since he emerged onto the scene. He's probably sharpened up even more of late.
 
CheadleBeagle said:
I think Roger peaked around 2006 -2007 when he played some sublime tennis. If you see some old films of Roger he was much more aggressive and faster. At that point Nadal pretty well only beat him on clay. Nadal probably peaked in 2010 and now it's Djokovic's turn. One thing, I don't see Nadal nor Djokovic getting to semi-finals and being competitive when they're 30 years old.
Roger's style of play, with more net play, means he doesn't have these long punishing ralleys and thus is still going at 30.
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
amolbhatia50k said:
We're talking about greatness not just success (remember Federer and Nadal still lead there) though. I'm not diminishing anything, just saying it plays it's part. Give me an an exciting and equally successful football team anyday over Mourinho's boring but effective Chelsea. My counter point was that this isn't Ronaldhinio vs Messi. The margins are miniscule here whereas they are enormous there.
Click to expand...
You have a case if he is can-crushing in a weak era but he is doing it in the most competitive era of Men's tennis, has better H2H over the other two GOATs, does it in every surface and stands a very good chance of ending up with more slams than anyone in tennis. If that's not a better claim for greatness than style of play, I legitimately don't know what is.
 
CheadleBeagle said:
I think Roger peaked around 2006 -2007 when he played some sublime tennis. If you see some old films of Roger he was much more aggressive and faster. At that point Nadal pretty well only beat him on clay. Nadal probably peaked in 2010 and now it's Djokovic's turn. One thing, I don't see Nadal nor Djokovic getting to semi-finals and being competitive when they're 30 years old.
Roger's style of play, with more net play, means he doesn't have these long punishing ralleys and thus is still going at 30.
Click to expand...
Djokovic is 34, Nadal 35.
 
amolbhatia50k said:
It's hardly the same thing. It's more like Messi vs Maradona vs Pele with one being comfortably the easiest on the eye. Whether it adds to greatness is up for debate, but then this whole race/comparison is extremely so. I think it plays a part in one's greatness for sure. Barcelona under Pep captured people's imagination the way Real Madrid under Zidane couldn't. I'm obviously a huge Federer fan, but one of the reasons is because he is truly a joy to watch. No other sportsman I'd rather watch in full flight, with Messi being second, probably. Grace, aggressive front-foot tennis, big serve, one-handed backhand, brilliant forehand, love it. I'd love to have to have seen Federer on faster courts where he would be able to dominate more from the net rather than always live in fear of being passed with the time and space you now have at the baseline.
Click to expand...
Like Ronnie O'Sullivan in snooker. The way he plays is huge part of his greatness.
 
I think Federer must be taking dump lot more gracefully and that should count in his favour. Nadal probably makes moaning noises and Djokovic just goes through different moods while doing it.
 
Water Melon said:
Djokovic is 34, Nadal 35.
Click to expand...

That post is from 2012, bumped it because there were always arguments about Rafa and Novak's games being less pretty, less efficient, less sustainable etc...

Djokovic has won 7 Majors in his 30s, twice as many as Fed in that time period.
 
Last edited:
The Man Himself said:
I think Federer must be taking dump lot more gracefully and that should count in his favour. Nadal probably makes moaning noises and Djokovic just goes through different moods while doing it.
Click to expand...

Based on his lack of popularity relative to the other two, he must smear poop all over the walls and write "vaccines don't work".
 
Nani Nana said:
Positive psychology is of increasing interest in the military.



If you listen to Federer's basic advice in Laver Cup here, it is the same thing:

Click to expand...


This has nothing to do with what we're talking about - never mind Federer and Nadal attempting to cheer a player up during a changeover. We're talking about mental focus - the ability to concentrate better than your opponent, to where they make the mistake and not you.
 
thepolice123 said:
You have a case if he is can-crushing in a weak era but he is doing it in the most competitive era of Men's tennis, has better H2H over the other two GOATs, does it in every surface and stands a very good chance of ending up with more slams than anyone in tennis. If that's not a better claim for greatness than style of play, I legitimately don't know what is.
Click to expand...
And you've not even considered that he has the most weeks at no.1, joint with Nadal for Masters 1000 titles, just one behind Federer in ATP finals. I'm a huge Nadal fan but I think a lot of tennis fans (particularly Nadal and Federer fans) have downplayed Djokovic's greatness for years. It is understandable that you back your favorite however objectivity gets thrown out of the window a little too much.
 
Raoul said:
Having followed tennis for about 30 years now, I'd say its Federer. More slams than any other player, more consecutive weeks at number one, and one of the very few who has won all four slams. Not with standing the actual grand slams that Budge and Laver won, they weren't nearly as consistent as Federer. Connors has won more singles titles but only half the slams as Fed. Sampras has one more Wimbledon (7) but never managed the French.

For me the top five would be:

1. Federer
2. Borg
3. Sampras
4. Laver
5. Nadal

Who are your top five of all time and why ?
Click to expand...


Not sure how you can compare the modern era with a time when wooden racquets were the norm.

Anyway. Boris Becker is my favourite of all time. The Croat is clearly the best modern era player though. Borg probably best wooden era player.
 
Question: at which point does it become pedantic to focus purely on number of slams? Winning 10 slams is extremely good. 20 is just insane. And soon we might have 3 players on that number.

Can you really definitely conclude that a player with 21 slams is better than player with 20, just because the number is higher? Once you're approaching 20 slams, things like luck with injuries, timing, surface, lucky draws and other margins will start to play an increasingly bigger role.

Success, while important, is not the only important metric. Not even in some individual sports. I think that if the margin is only 1 or 2 slams, then it's a bit silly to purely lean on that argument. It's certainly a good argument to back your case, though. Particularly seeing as all 3 played in the same era(though Federer hit his peak long before Djokovic).
 
saivet said:
And you've not even considered that he has the most weeks at no.1, joint with Nadal for Masters 1000 titles, just one behind Federer in ATP finals. I'm a huge Nadal fan but I think a lot of tennis fans (particularly Nadal and Federer fans) have downplayed Djokovic's greatness for years. It is understandable that you back your favorite however objectivity gets thrown out of the window a little too much.
Click to expand...

Winning all four Majors consecutively in 2015-16 is also unrepeatable.

Nadal winning the French Open 13 times won't happen again in history. Djoker winning all four consecutively also is unlikely to happen again.

Maybe another player comes up within the next 30 years and collects 20+ Majors. The ability to remain motivated is key, as demonstrated by Thiem who has fallen off a cliff since US Open. Until then Djoker, Fed, Rafa are top 3 in history (IMO in that order). I would add Laver and Borg as 4 and 5.
 
Here is the list of Grand Slams won by each player at each age:

19: Federer (0) - Nadal (1) - Djokovic (0) 0-1-0
20: Federer (0) - Nadal (1) - Djokovic (1) 0-2-1
21: Federer (1) - Nadal (1) - Djokovic (0) 1-3-1
22: Federer (2) - Nadal (3) - Djokovic (0) 3-6-1
23: Federer (2) - Nadal (0) - Djokovic (1) 5-6-2
24: Federer (3) - Nadal (3) - Djokovic (3) 8-9-5
25: Federer (3) - Nadal (1) - Djokovic (1) 11-10-6
26: Federer (1) - Nadal (1) - Djokovic (0) 12-11-6
27: Federer (3) - Nadal (2) - Djokovic (2) 15-13-8
28: Federer (1) - Nadal (1) - Djokovic (3) 16-14-11
29: Federer (0) - Nadal (0) - Djokovic (1) 16-14-12
30: Federer (1) - Nadal (0) - Djokovic (0) 17-14-12
31: Federer (0) - Nadal (2) - Djokovic (3) 17-16-15
32: Federer (0) - Nadal (1) - Djokovic (2) 17-17-17
33: Federer (0) - Nadal (2) - Djokovic (1) 17-19-18
34: Federer (0) - Nadal (1) - Djokovic (1+) 17-20-19
35: Federer (2) - Nadal (N/A) - Djokovic (N/A) 19-20-19
36: Federer (1) - Nadal (N/A) - Djokovic (N/A) 20-20-19

To the best of my knowledge, players used to fall off the edge of a cliff at the age of 30 so interesting to note that Federer has won 4 of his 20 Grand Slams since he turned 30, Nadal 6 out of 20, and Djokovic 7 out of 19.
 
Spoony said:
Not sure how you can compare the modern era with a time when wooden racquets were the norm.

Anyway. Boris Becker is my favourite of all time. The Croat is clearly the best modern era player though. Borg probably best wooden era player.
Click to expand...

Becker was probably my favorite growing up as well. Amazing serve and athleticism.
 
The thing that will always stand out for Fed is obscene dominance for 4-5 years, a Borg like stanglehold on two slams, while actually showing up at the others unlike Borg and basically reaching every final bar 2 of them. But at this point, that's almost it. All his old man success stuff is just followed up a few years later by the other two.

Federer essentially shut out a whole generation of players - Safin/Roddick/Hewitt we're better players than they are remembered as being, I mean Safin and Hewitt smashed up Sampras at Flushing ffs. Federer's made it so they are all remembered as near bums more or less.
 
Raoul said:
This has nothing to do with what we're talking about - never mind Federer and Nadal attempting to cheer a player up during a changeover. We're talking about mental focus - the ability to concentrate better than your opponent, to where they make the mistake and not you.
Click to expand...

It is not the intensity of focus but endurance which is key.

So many next Gen players struggle to focus for five sets, let alone a fortnight. I also see a lot of under-arm serves from Kyrgios, Musetti, Medvedev although I have never seen Rafa, Fed or Djoker do it even once. It has no use strategically, more that they are bored and want to entertain themselves with it.

I wonder if the social media-bred generations of the future will have the fortitude to stay focused in 5-setters.

Probably why some want best of 5 to be shortened to best of 3.
 
OleBoiii said:
Question: at which point does it become pedantic to focus purely on number of slams? Winning 10 slams is extremely good. 20 is just insane. And soon we might have 3 players on that number.

Can you really definitely conclude that a player with 21 slams is better than player with 20, just because the number is higher? Once you're approaching 20 slams, things like luck with injuries, timing, surface, lucky draws and other margins will start to play an increasingly bigger role.

Success, while important, is not the only important metric. Not even in some individual sports. I think that if the margin is only 1 or 2 slams, then it's a bit silly to purely lean on that argument. It's certainly a good argument to back your case, though. Particularly seeing as all 3 played in the same era(though Federer hit his peak long before Djokovic).
Click to expand...

Nobody is definitely concluding that purely on just slams alone.

But on the other hand, one player has the best H2H record among the three, far better record in the finals against the other two, did the job in all surfaces and is only 1 slam behind equaling the record. Would getting the record slams make him the best?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.