Greatest mens tennis player of all time

Important aspects to consider beyond the number of Grand Slams and H2H:

- Peak level
- Longevity
- Versatility (i.e not be a specialist on just one surface)
- Consistency (the fewer upsets the better)
- Dominance when number 1(both in terms of duration and skill compared to rivals)
- Era (not really relevant in the case of the current 3)
- Attendance (the more you attend, the better)

Some of the above are more important than the others, but all should at least be considered when looking at the full picture.
 
OleBoiii said:
Important aspects to consider beyond the number of Grand Slams and H2H:

- Peak level
- Longevity
- Versatility (i.e not be a specialist on just one surface)
- Consistency (the fewer upsets the better)
- Dominance when number 1(both in terms of duration and skill compared to rivals)
- Era (not really relevant in the case of the current 3)
- Attendance (the more you attend, the better)

Some of the above are more important than the others, but all should at least be considered when looking at the full picture.
Click to expand...
Honestly, all three of them are pretty equal in this aspect (except Nadal who probably lacks versatility, although, 8 GS in his non-favorite surface is still very good).
 
Raoul said:
The big three didn't exist then - a good thing that ultimately made the 80s more interesting.
Click to expand...

What I’m saying is that none of the players in the 80s were as good as the big three now, so you saw a lesser quality of tennis at the apex, even though the results were more unpredictable.
 
Revan said:
Honestly, all three of them are pretty equal in this aspect (except Nadal who probably lacks versatility, although, 8 GS in his non-favorite surface is still very good).
Click to expand...

He has 7 outside of the FO? Still good, I mean that’s an all time great career for a normal person
 
NasirTimothy said:
What I’m saying is that none of the players in the 80s were as good as the big three now, so you saw a lesser quality of tennis at the apex, even though the results were more unpredictable.
Click to expand...

Yes true, but that wouldn't have been noticed at the time since no one knew about the big three back then. Therefore the quality in the 80s, to those of us who watched it at the time, was pretty good. Obviously to someone who is very young and didn't start watching tennis until the 2000s, this would not make much sense since all they've ever known is the big three.
 
Raoul said:
Yes true, but that wouldn't have been noticed at the time since no one knew about the big three back then. Therefore the quality in the 80s, to those of us who watched it at the time, was pretty good. Obviously to someone who is very young and didn't start watching tennis until the 2000s, this would not make much sense since all they've ever known is the big three.
Click to expand...
Basically the same as I feel after growing up watching tennis in the 90s. At the time, you didn't think "eh, this tennis isn't that great". It was great, and the only Major that was in any way predictable was Wimbledon.
 
Not sure I overly agree on the lower standard, well obviously yes, but as with anything, subtext. Borg was immense, and stuff like 'Career Grand Slam' we're kind of irrelevant then - and more to the point, he himself was bigger than the sport anyway, his motivation for the US Open wasn't at the same level and it was non-existent for the Aussie. He also triple doubled on the French-Wimbledon when Wimbledon was significantly faster.

He should never be out of the conversation....

Laver, Connors, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Novak. The 7 Pillars of Tennis Greatness for me in chronological order there. Lendl - who had insanely 5 years where he played 80+ games with a 90% win rate and Mcenroe just on the outside. Agassi further back fills out the 10.
 
Zen said:
Not sure I overly agree on the lower standard, well obviously yes, but as with anything, subtext. Borg was immense, and stuff like 'Career Grand Slam' we're kind of irrelevant then - and more to the point, he himself was bigger than the sport anyway, his motivation for the US Open wasn't at the same level and it was non-existent for the Aussie. He also triple doubled on the French-Wimbledon when Wimbledon was significantly faster.

He should never be out of the conversation....

Laver, Connors, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Novak. The 7 Pillars of Tennis Greatness for me in chronological order there. Lendl - who had insanely 5 years where he played 80+ games with a 90% win rate and Mcenroe just on the outside. Agassi further back fills out the 10.
Click to expand...
Yes.

Thinking back about the early to mid 90s... there was such a big collection of men's tennis talent on the court together.

You had Becker, Edberg, Lendl, Courier, Sampras, Agassi, not to mention Bruguera and Chang...
 
Zen said:
Not sure I overly agree on the lower standard, well obviously yes, but as with anything, subtext. Borg was immense, and stuff like 'Career Grand Slam' we're kind of irrelevant then - and more to the point, he himself was bigger than the sport anyway, his motivation for the US Open wasn't at the same level and it was non-existent for the Aussie. He also triple doubled on the French-Wimbledon when Wimbledon was significantly faster.

He should never be out of the conversation....

Laver, Connors, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Novak. The 7 Pillars of Tennis Greatness for me in chronological order there. Lendl - who had insanely 5 years where he played 80+ games with a 90% win rate and Mcenroe just on the outside. Agassi further back fills out the 10.
Click to expand...
That's a nice top ten. I do think in 5/10 years we'll start seeing the rise of the children of the 3 and hopefully a couple of them crack that list.
 
Desert Eagle said:
That's a nice top ten. I do think in 5/10 years we'll start seeing the rise of the children of the 3 and hopefully a couple of them crack that list.
Click to expand...

In a way Rafa and Novak are both Fed's children aren't they. Witnessed his dominance just before turning pro. His regularity at the top blazed a trail for them to follow.

Zen said:
Not sure I overly agree on the lower standard, well obviously yes, but as with anything, subtext. Borg was immense, and stuff like 'Career Grand Slam' we're kind of irrelevant then - and more to the point, he himself was bigger than the sport anyway, his motivation for the US Open wasn't at the same level and it was non-existent for the Aussie. He also triple doubled on the French-Wimbledon when Wimbledon was significantly faster.

He should never be out of the conversation....

Laver, Connors, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Novak. The 7 Pillars of Tennis Greatness for me in chronological order there. Lendl - who had insanely 5 years where he played 80+ games with a 90% win rate and Mcenroe just on the outside. Agassi further back fills out the 10.
Click to expand...

Pretty good list...

Lendl dwarfed Connors 22-13 in their head to head though... same number of Majors too... you could argue he was a better tennis player.
 
Zen said:
Not sure I overly agree on the lower standard, well obviously yes, but as with anything, subtext. Borg was immense, and stuff like 'Career Grand Slam' we're kind of irrelevant then - and more to the point, he himself was bigger than the sport anyway, his motivation for the US Open wasn't at the same level and it was non-existent for the Aussie. He also triple doubled on the French-Wimbledon when Wimbledon was significantly faster.

He should never be out of the conversation....

Laver, Connors, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Novak. The 7 Pillars of Tennis Greatness for me in chronological order there. Lendl - who had insanely 5 years where he played 80+ games with a 90% win rate and Mcenroe just on the outside. Agassi further back fills out the 10.
Click to expand...

I'd replace McEnroe with Becker as I think he was more talented overall but good list.
 
How Chang came back to beat Lendl as a 17 year old - I'll never know.... but then again, Lendl did it to McEnroe to ruin his next to perfect 1984 season, so karma's a bitch :lol:

Nani Nana said:
Lendl dwarfed Connors 22-13 in their head to head though... one more Major title to his name too... you could argue he was a better tennis player.
Click to expand...

But you are talking a H2H where peaks we're a decade apart. Connors was in old man mode when Lendl was in his pomp and won like 20 times on the bounce against him. Connors 74-78ish, Lendl 85-89ish. Give or take.
 
Nani Nana said:
In a way Rafa and Novak are both Fed's children aren't they. Witnessed his dominance just before turning pro. His regularity at the top blazed a trail for them to follow.
Click to expand...
More like younger siblings. 4/5 years is not long enough i feel. The current 10-25 year olds will be the children generation for me.
 
E6B3pTOX0AIN77c
 
I expect Novaxx to equalise soon but this is Herculean from Nadal, you cant begrudge the guy that, no matter how much you root for the other 2.
 
If Nadal stays healthy he’ll likely be 2 ahead after June. Incredible stuff from him today.
 
I'm a die hard Federer but well done Nadal. Not only a sporting legend but such a classy fellow too.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
I'm resigned to him losing the record after the travesty of 2019. Out of the other two, much rather Nadal holding that rather than the cuckoo idiot.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah for sure. That debacle was the his reign over the record. Just a matter of time after that. But definitely prefer Nadal leading the pack over Novaxx even though the former has caused me more heartache !
 
Interval said:
Nadal is the Cristiano to Federers messi.
But the tennis guys are just so humble that they’re perfect role modes
Click to expand...
Nadal is light-years more likable than Ronaldo. And he's better at his sport too.
 
amolbhatia50k said:
I'm a die hard Federer but well done Nadal. Not only a sporting legend but such a classy fellow too.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much me too - I've come to like Nadal more as he's aged, he's more honest nowadays and his tennis is a lot less pushy/grindy.

He's fortunate Djokovic is such an idiot, as then he'd have been up against a similar wall but one that didn't collapse mentally.

FO is basically a gimme unless Novak gets the vaccine, so he should be able to finish a few clear.
 
Novak will easily get ahead. You get the feeling he can win another 3-4 whereas Nadal had an amazing effort with the right circumstances (no novak) to win his last few slams. You feel he is struggling with his body more than Djokovic and in the long term he will get surpassed.
 
GatoLoco said:
To think the top 3 have played in the same era almost simultaneously. How many Grand Slams would have they won in other era?
Click to expand...
Maybe less because we don't know how they would fare against greats from those eras. Sampras and Agassi in their primes would not be dominated as badly as the zverevs of this world. If a Wawrinka (great as he is on his day) and Murray ate up a few Grand Slams against the big three, then Sampras and Agassi who are at least as good on top form on their day and more consistent are capable of it too.
 
Who cares. I am a federer fan but enjoyed every bit of nadal's win. Great personality.
 
Nadal the greatest for now, but I think everyone knows that Djokovic will claim that title when they have all retired.
 
AjaxCunian said:
Nadal the greatest for now, but I think everyone knows that Djokovic will claim that title when they have all retired.
Click to expand...
Yep. You feel that, like Federer, his body is starting to fall apart. Even he himself just admitted he didn't know whether he would be competing anymore. Djokovic seems to be the fittest of them all at the moment.
 
Swedish_Plumber said:
Excuse me for being ignorant but what was the travesty of 2019?
Click to expand...
2019 Wimbledon, Federer won 218 points compared to Djokovic's 203, plus Federer had two championship points on his own serve at 40-15
 
You must log in or register to reply here.