Greatest mens tennis player of all time

Raoul said:
He won 16 slams, the fact that he was involved another five or six that he didn't win just drives home the point of how successful he's been.
Click to expand...

How mad must it make Murray that he'll never get to face someone as shit as Roddick in a GS Final?
 
Roddick schooled Murray at Wimbledon the one time he didn't get Nadal(I know Murray has beaten him btw, but he was in terrible form for a while and Murray IS the better player tbh, but again a case of being the new generation). Immensely unfair on him that he has this joke tag on him now, definitely a one dimensional player, but an immensely effective one, and would of been quite high up on the all time grand slam wins had Federer not been around or even just not as consistent, certainly would would of won at least one at the Aussie, Wimbledon(probably 3-4) and obviously more US Opens. The loss at Wimbledon 2009 was simply just unfair, no one other player who didn't win deserves a Wimbledon title more, not Henman, not Goran when he finally won it, not even Lendl imo.
 
KM said:
A grand slam is a grand slam, I like how people here undervaluing Federer's quality and grand slam wins. I'd like to see Novak or Rafa or Murray being as good at 30 as Federer is right now. The majority of the Tennis players reach their peak at 24-25 so it's also fair to say that the supposed domination by Nadal on Federer happened when Fed was falling off his peak and Nadal was reaching his peak.

For all the worshiping of Sampras here, how many worthy rivals did he have in his prime?

Agassi who if anyone has read his biography will know what a complex character he was and how much he absolutely hated playing tennis. He was brilliant but he was also extremely inconsistent. Also let's not forget that Sampras's record at French Open was absolutely awful, average players like Gustavo Kuerten won the French Open but Sampras was absolutely awful at it.

I guess the main reason why people here are keen to undervalue Fed's achievements is mainly because of his personality. Still on his day he could defeat both Nadal and Novak, which at the age of 30 deserves some more credit than the guys here are willing to give him. Fed at his prime was amazing to watch, if he's giving both of them tough games at this age then we can safely say that he would've defeated both of them when he was at top of his game.
Click to expand...
I agree. Federer is surely the best tennis player ever. On top of his form, he was untouchable. People forget that he now plays against others in their prime and its very hard, as Sampras had to find out when he lost to Federer aged 20. The way Federer played Tennis was like Zidane playing football - so much class, so much excellence, just superior than anyone else. He truly deserves to be labelled the best
 
Escobar said:
I agree. Federer is surely the best tennis player ever. On top of his form, he was untouchable. People forget that he now plays against others in their prime and its very hard, as Sampras had to find out when he lost to Federer aged 20. The way Federer played Tennis was like Zidane playing football - so much class, so much excellence, just superior than anyone else. He truly deserves to be labelled the best
Click to expand...

What people are saying is that Federer is spoiling his legacy by coming across as an arrogant twat in many interviews whenever he loses. I'm sorry but looking for a gold standard in an individual sport must also include looking at one's personality.

Pelé's ridiculous outbursts at Messi and Maradona back in the day have played a part in him losing much of his aura.
 
I've always wondered how many Open's Laver would've won if professional players could take part in them for those five years he was ineligible. As it was he won 11, including all four the year before he turned professional, and all four the second year after he was allowed back in. You have to think he would have won at least another five during that five year period, and in all likelihood would've set a record that the likes of Sampras and Federer would never have beaten.

Of course, if I'm getting into the hypothetical's then it also has to be acknowledged that his earlier slams came at a time when professional players couldn't take part, so he may not have won as many of them as he did in those early years.
 
MadDogg said:
I've always wondered how many Open's Laver would've won if professional players could take part in them for those five years he was ineligible. As it was he won 11, including all four the year before he turned professional, and all four the second year after he was allowed back in. You have to think he would have won at least another five during that five year period, and in all likelihood would've set a record that the likes of Sampras and Federer would never have beaten.

Of course, if I'm getting into the hypothetical's then it also has to be acknowledged that his earlier slams came at a time when professional players couldn't take part, so he may not have won as many of them as he did in those early years.
Click to expand...

You have to set those 5 "lost" years in the pro ranks against the grand slams he won in 1961 and 1962, when he was not by any stretch the best player in the world - just the best amateur. Rosewall and Gonzales were better players at that time.
 
1. Fed
2. Sampras
3. Borg
4. Connors
5. Lendl / Edberg / McEnroe / Wilander

Never saw Laver to comment on him. Agassi I am sure should be included in the top 10 but I hated him
 
bazalini said:
1. Fed
2. Sampras
3. Borg
4. Connors
5. Lendl / Edberg / McEnroe / Wilander

Never saw Laver to comment on him. Agassi I am sure should be included in the top 10 but I hated him
Click to expand...

That's a fair post 1970 list. Agassi would probably sneak into number 5 if you didn't hate him so much.
 
I was told that after Borg lost to McEnroe he quit, because he realized this guy was so much better he would just tarnish his reputation to continue and end up losing to him again.

So I'd think McEnroe should be above Borg.
 
Nadal beat Federer the very first team they played and in straight sets and on hard courts. Federer was at his peak at this time.

Federer is one of best of all time but he's won a lot of Slams when his "competition" was one shot wonder Roddick and Hewitt. Nadal and Djokovic have had to come up against Federer to win their Slams.
 
Zen said:
Roddick schooled Murray at Wimbledon the one time he didn't get Nadal(I know Murray has beaten him btw, but he was in terrible form for a while and Murray IS the better player tbh, but again a case of being the new generation). Immensely unfair on him that he has this joke tag on him now, definitely a one dimensional player, but an immensely effective one, and would of been quite high up on the all time grand slam wins had Federer not been around or even just not as consistent, certainly would would of won at least one at the Aussie, Wimbledon(probably 3-4) and obviously more US Opens. The loss at Wimbledon 2009 was simply just unfair, no one other player who didn't win deserves a Wimbledon title more, not Henman, not Goran when he finally won it, not even Lendl imo.
Click to expand...

He threw away the 2009 title. Having set points for a 2 sets to love lead and then to miss the volley that he did at set point is criminal.
 
Dont know who the best player was, but the best DJ has to be DJ Okovic
 
Nice necro lol.

Another one for Roger but even if he hadn't win today he was going to be still regarded as the best ever.
 
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
4. Murray

That's it. The rest don't compare. The standard was nowhere near as high.
 
Federer has gotta be considered the best ever at this point.

I too young to have seen guys like Laver or Borg play, but in my life of watching tennis I'd go with...

1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Nadal
4. Djokovic
5. Agassi
 
Raoul said:
Any changes 5 years on ?
Click to expand...
Even if Federer lost today I don't think it would've changed anything.

Fed is still #1 and since then Nadal/Djokovic moved up couple of places, apart from that it's pretty much the same picture.
wr8_utd said:
Nadal beat Federer the very first team they played and in straight sets and on hard courts. Federer was at his peak at this time.

Federer is one of best of all time but he's won a lot of Slams when his "competition" was one shot wonder Roddick and Hewitt. Nadal and Djokovic have had to come up against Federer to win their Slams.
Click to expand...

That bit is ridiculous and always has been a myth. A guy like Wawrinka, who Federer spanks regularly even off his peak is a 3 times GS winner these days. Nothing to take away from him of course - fully deserved that, but that wouldn't be possible playing against peak Federer. Same goes really for Djokovic/Murray who Federer beats regularly deep in his 30's as well.

During Fed's peak his h2h with Nadal was 6-8 in Nadal's favor with only 2 of those wins for Nadal (no majors) came off clay.

In the end of the day it's titles that matters, as tennis is no boxing and Federer has the most of those that matter.
 
Best singles players I've seen are Laver, Borg, McEnroe, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic. 3 left handers out of 6.

Sampras not so much. He won a lot of majors but wasn't a great all court player - see his (lack of) record in the French open. His backhand would be punished by the top players of today.

McEnroe didn't win so many majors but is up there with Nastase and Federer as the player with the most racket ability. What they couldn't do with a tennis racket isn't worth doing.
 
surf said:
Best singles players I've seen are Laver, Borg, McEnroe, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic. 3 left handers out of 6.

Sampras not so much. He won a lot of majors but wasn't a great all court player - see his (lack of) record in the French open. His backhand would be punished by the top players of today.

McEnroe didn't win so many majors but is up there with Nastase and Federer as the player with the most racket ability. What they couldn't do with a tennis racket isn't worth doing.
Click to expand...

I always thought McEnroe was sandwiched into a difficult period where he started while Borg was at his peak, then once he had a couple of good years, Lendl suddenly emerged to take over the number 1.
 
Raoul said:
I always thought McEnroe was sandwiched into a difficult period where he started while Borg was at his peak, then once he had a couple of good years, Lendl suddenly emerged to take over the number 1.
Click to expand...
If you read his biography it seems that he was affected by Borg's early retirement. They (and Gerulaitis) were friends as well as rivals and he said it just wasn't the same afterwards. His loss to Connors in the 82 Wimbledon final was hard to fathom as he was so much the better player at that point. But for that he would have won 4 Wimbledons in a row. He was also probably the best doubles player I've seen, easily the best among the singles greats.
 
surf said:
If you read his biography it seems that he was affected by Borg's early retirement. They (and Gerulaitis) were friends as well as rivals and he said it just wasn't the same afterwards. His loss to Connors in the 82 Wimbledon final was hard to fathom as he was so much the better player at that point. But for that he would have won 4 Wimbledons in a row. He was also probably the best doubles player I've seen, easily the best among the singles greats.
Click to expand...

Peter Fleming if i recall correctly.
 
Laver is a bit of a what if. I mean he's clearly one of the greatest, but if he'd had that six years he'd probably be beyond Federer. Different times and all that but still a record that's unlikely to be topped (the two calendar Grand Slams).

I'm a Nadal man of the current crop but it's hard to argue with Federer's achievements. Genius.
 
1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Nadal
4. Sampras

From my lifetime. Djokovic over Nadal due to Slam H2H, versatility and the fact that he's likely to catch up or win even more Slams than Rafa. No problem if order is flipped.
 
1) Federer & Nadal
3) Djokovic
4) Sampras
5) Agassi

...from my time of watching.

Federer, Nadal, Borg, Laver and Djokovic for all-time.
 
Archie Leach said:
Laver is a bit of a what if. I mean he's clearly one of the greatest, but if he'd had that six years he'd probably be beyond Federer. Different times and all that but still a record that's unlikely to be topped (the two calendar Grand Slams).

I'm a Nadal man of the current crop but it's hard to argue with Federer's achievements. Genius.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, his early victories, up to and including the 1962 grand slam, were against a depleted field because the best players like Gonzales and Rosewall were barred by being professionals. When Laver turned professional after the 1962 season he was clearly not the best player among them and it took him a while to become the top professional. Swings and roundabouts.
 
Enigma_87 said:
Even if Federer lost today I don't think it would've changed anything.

Fed is still #1 and since then Nadal/Djokovic moved up couple of places, apart from that it's pretty much the same picture.


That bit is ridiculous and always has been a myth. A guy like Wawrinka, who Federer spanks regularly even off his peak is a 3 times GS winner these days. Nothing to take away from him of course - fully deserved that, but that wouldn't be possible playing against peak Federer. Same goes really for Djokovic/Murray who Federer beats regularly deep in his 30's as well.

During Fed's peak his h2h with Nadal was 6-8 in Nadal's favor with only 2 of those wins for Nadal (no majors) came off clay.

In the end of the day it's titles that matters, as tennis is no boxing and Federer has the most of those that matter.
Click to expand...
I'm not denying Fed is top of the GOAT debate but you just can't deny the fact that he picked up a lot of majors when he had no competition. I'd kill to have seen Nadal for a year or two with one shot wonders like Roddick as his greatest rival.
As for Stan, he's beaten peak Djokovic for each of his slams so he's not had it easy either. Nadal, Murray and Djokovic just genuinely have had to battle far harder for their slams as compared to Fed steamrolling it against poor opposition for 2 years. Fed is still GOAT though and I won't deny that.
 
surf said:
On the other hand, his early victories, up to and including the 1962 grand slam, were against a depleted field because the best players like Gonzales and Rosewall were barred by being professionals. When Laver turned professional after the 1962 season he was clearly not the best player among them and it took him a while to become the top professional. Swings and roundabouts.
Click to expand...
True but he was the number one pro by '64 so I think it's fair to say he could have added 7 slams in between.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.