I honestly think the goat debate is super dumb, why can't y'all just enjoy them as players without measuring dicks over which player you support is better?
Greatest mens tennis player of all time
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Yup, he's not. All he's done is win more US Opens than Novak but yeah, clay is all he's good at.
Agreed, and that final remains one of the most memorable tennis matches ever.
Overall though - particualrly the Aussie and US Open, feels like Fed had Rafa outside of the French. But then, Rafa basically went over a decade never entering Roland Garros without winning, which is absolutely absurd.
As a reasonable tennis player, I'll always appreciate Fed more, not just because (I think objectively speaking) he is aesthetically miles above the above the two, but also because he really forces points. Novak and Rafa are more about being walls imo, whereas between his serve and forehand, Fed was utterly dominant at his best.
He also has that one handed backhand that is so classically pure. So yes, while in the final reckoning he places behind Novak and Rafa in the Goat debate, there is much to set him apart as being the greatest exponent of the pure art of tennis. I can totally see some people’s preference of him as their favourite or greatest player ever. Even if he isn’t. Because he played tennis the right way.
Gets me every time
They were simply never going to pay each other that many times on grass. All 4 of those meetings have been at Wimbledon as Nadal either skipped the grass court tournaments prior or played Queens instead of Halle. It's a bit of a pointless what if scenario given the grass court season is so small. Similarly what if clay courts had the same prominence as hard courts in terms of tournaments.
Not saying it shouldn't be looked at but winning tournaments with stronger fields and more stakes on the line will always be rated higher by fans and top players.
Djokovic was turning around that H2H when Federer was still a good player. It works both ways too, Federer had the advantage of being the much more experienced player in when Djokovic was younger and more prone to injuries.
Yeah all subjective at the end of the day but in my opinion he's a clear third behind the other two. Nadal currently has the lead in the most important statistic and has a decent claim but I think Djokovic's career as a whole has him as the greatest player of the three.
even after all this time of absence I believed he would return and keep playing on decent level somehow. couple of years ago I though it's 100% certain that he would retire as soon as he wins another Wimbledon. going out this way feels strange/wrong a bit. obviously, he knows his body better than anybody else and sees no point in waiting the next Wimbledon to retire there.
anyway, easily the third best player in history.
anyway, easily the third best player in history.
Last edited:
Personally I feel like this is effectively just looking at stats without context and not watching the tournaments. Both his latest US open wins have come with Djokovic being injured and he hadn’t beaten Djokovic on a hard court for something stupid like 6 years prior to 2019, Djokovic had also taken the ascendency on clay in that period. Nadal really hasn’t been near his peak for a long time. 2017 I don’t think Nadal even faced a top 50 player until the semis.
Also I’m clearly not saying he’s ‘only good’ on clay but the others are more well rounded in this debate of very fine margins in my opinion:
Fed. 11 hard, 8 grass, 1 clay
Djo. 12 hard, 7 grass, 2 clay
Nad. 6 hard, 2 grass, 14 clay
Heart says Federer, head says Djokovic, so going with Nadal. More seriously:
1a) Djokovic - at his peak, he was close to unbeatable (yeah, I know Wawrinka and Murray). In the middle of the last decade, he was winning grand slams for fun, he had the highest ever ELO rating, then he stopped playing. Then came back, defeated everyone again, broke the record for the number of weeks at #1, and then stopped playing again cause didn't want the microchip. Probably will come back and win another 2 GS just to end #1 on the list.
1b) Federer - by far the most artistic player I have seen, probably in any sport. People who do not care about tennis, are Federer fans and watch him play. A bit like what Ali was for boxing or Jordan for basketball, he made many new fans of the sport. He still holds the record for the number of consecutive weeks at #1, a record which won't be broken for some time. Also, has won more trophies than anyone else.
1c) Nadal - the guy with the most GS ends #3 on my list. I think the main reason for this, is that his distribution of GS is quite weaker. He is far better in FO than Federer in Wimbledon or Djokovic in AO, but he is weaker than either of them in all the other three GS that are not FO. Credits to him for maximizing what he was at best though. Also, kind of crazy that he has as many French Opens, as the most successful player ever outside of these 3 (Sampras), has entire Grand Slams. If Djokovic's record for most weeks as #1 is very hard to get broken, Federer's record for most consecutive weeks as #1 is extremely hard to get broken, Nadal's record of 14 GS in a tournament is just impossible to get broken.
In any case, I think that all three were close to each other, and we will have to wait a long time for a new player to be as good as them, let alone 3 players at the same time. I think this is a list that cannot be wrong whatever permutation you use.
10) Probably Sampras.
1a) Djokovic - at his peak, he was close to unbeatable (yeah, I know Wawrinka and Murray). In the middle of the last decade, he was winning grand slams for fun, he had the highest ever ELO rating, then he stopped playing. Then came back, defeated everyone again, broke the record for the number of weeks at #1, and then stopped playing again cause didn't want the microchip. Probably will come back and win another 2 GS just to end #1 on the list.
1b) Federer - by far the most artistic player I have seen, probably in any sport. People who do not care about tennis, are Federer fans and watch him play. A bit like what Ali was for boxing or Jordan for basketball, he made many new fans of the sport. He still holds the record for the number of consecutive weeks at #1, a record which won't be broken for some time. Also, has won more trophies than anyone else.
1c) Nadal - the guy with the most GS ends #3 on my list. I think the main reason for this, is that his distribution of GS is quite weaker. He is far better in FO than Federer in Wimbledon or Djokovic in AO, but he is weaker than either of them in all the other three GS that are not FO. Credits to him for maximizing what he was at best though. Also, kind of crazy that he has as many French Opens, as the most successful player ever outside of these 3 (Sampras), has entire Grand Slams. If Djokovic's record for most weeks as #1 is very hard to get broken, Federer's record for most consecutive weeks as #1 is extremely hard to get broken, Nadal's record of 14 GS in a tournament is just impossible to get broken.
In any case, I think that all three were close to each other, and we will have to wait a long time for a new player to be as good as them, let alone 3 players at the same time. I think this is a list that cannot be wrong whatever permutation you use.
10) Probably Sampras.
Hard to pick anyone over Federer for me. The way he plays the game is a thing of beauty!
But the distribution of grand slams of the others is similar.
A lot of titles on one surface, an average amount of titles on another and a "weak" point / rival superiority, clay for some and grass for Nadal.
I agree with your post actually, even if I adore Nadal I would have a hard time deciding, but sometimes it sounds like underestimating the clay court season.
I think they have a better distribution IMO. Nadal has won 8 outside of FO, Federer has won 12 outside of Wimbledon, Djokovic has won 12 outside of AO.
Similarly, Federer is 1st in Wimbledon, joined first in US Open, second in the Australian Open, and has won just 1 FO.
Djokovic is 1st in the Australian open, 2nd in Wimbledon, and has 3 US Open (also just two FO where he is weaker).
Nadal is 1st in FO, has a very respectable 4 wins in US Open, but just 2 Wimbledon and Australian Open.
I think it also could be argued that it helped Nadal that there wasn't someone as good as him in FO, unlike Federer and Djokovic who had to split wins in the tournaments where they were great (they eliminated each other 8 times in each of Wimbledon and Australian open). Now of course, the reasons for this is that Nadal was just a freak in FO, and also that FO was by far the weakest tournament for the others. But I think it is hard to argue against that Nadal was worse in his 3 non favorite tournaments than Federer/Djokovic.
To conclude, if I had to pick a player to play with my life in question, I would pick Nadal in FO. If I had to pick one player to play 1 match in each of the 4 GS, I would pick Djokovic/Federer (probably in this order).
Nevertheless, I see no problems with Nadal being #1. He was just so dominant in FO, and he leads in GS, which historically is the most important thing.
I was referring rather to the list published by @tomaldinho1 in the previous post, differentiating purely by surface and not only by grand slams.
Fed. 11 hard, 8 grass, 1 clay (9 without hard)
Djo. 12 hard, 7 grass, 2 clay (9)
Nad. 6 hard, 2 grass, 14 clay (8)
You said that it helped Nadal that there wasn't someone as good as him in FO but perhaps the same could be said of Federer at Wimbledon until Nadal 2008, or Djokovic since Roger got older. The "there is no rival good enough" is a characteristic of tennis during these years of the big 3, but it seems that Rafa's superiority plays a trick on him in the comparisons and not the others.
Unfortunately I think that even in the case of coming first in number of grand slams the fact of not having been dominant on hard will work against him, and the discourse will be who was better in his prime
Not sure I particularly agree with that he did it first... it just looks better by modern perceptions of touring because he essentially entered the AO, Connors 74-78 was brilliant, and Borg 77-81 also generally brilliant, and well, really so was. I like Lendl... I'm just not sure I can put him above Connors, Borg or McEnroe... at a push, he'd go above McEnroe, but McEnroe still has that absolute killer 84 season, which coincidentally, Lendl ruined
I'm not putting him above those guys I'm just pointing out that just because you win more or the most, it doesn't necessarily mean you'll be remembered as the best or better than someone else. It sounds paradoxical but it's not just about winning (in any sport really). It's also about how you win.
You said "that had never been seen before" - I was mostly pointing out that it had been seen before, by multiple players instantly prior to Lendl... forget Laver and Rosewall having dominant seasons in succession too.
People need to compare the context of the eras instead of directly comparing, otherwise it's simply a contest of longevity and conditioning, which will always get better and always improve. The Big 3 played together, under the same context except actual opponents and well Federers age... so it's just easy to drag out an endless discussion.
The other thing I realised that strengthens, at least in my opinion, the more rounded argument is that Nadal has never been as close to the Grand Slam as the other two - Federer and Djokovic have both been denied it twice in finals.
- 2006 & 2007 Federer won the other 3 but lost in the Roland Garros final to Nadal both years.
- 2015 Djokovic won the other 3 but lost to Wawrinka in Roland Garros & in 2021 lost to Medvdev in the US open final.
I think you are missing the entire point of what I'm saying
Sorry I guess.
Didn’t you say Lendl was the first to dominate for an extended period?
While each of the big 3 are truly amazing players and are all among the greatest ever, I do think that their grand slam counts were all slightly inflated, which each of them benefiting from playing in homogenised conditions in terms of surfaces and playing styles on the tour compared to earlier generations, plus a clear lack of dangerous young players emerging and genuinely challenging them (the crop of players born in the early 90s in-particular was generally very weak and basically a gaping ‘black hole' in the sport - it took them an eternity to overtake the likes of Ferrer and Berdych). Federer admitted as much as in the past.
When Sampras won his first grand slam at the US Open 1990, in the quarter-finals he beat Lendl who mostly played from the baseline but came to the net quite a few times (more times than any of the big 3 would typically come to the net), then in the semi-finals he beat McEnroe who serve volleyed behind every 1st serve and almost every 2nd serve, and then in the final he beat Agassi who almost exclusively stayed back. So round by round he adjusted to facing elite players with drastically different styles.
When Borg won his 3 consecutive Roland Garros-Wimbledon doubles from 1978-1980, he engaged in lengthy baseline rallies in Paris before a few weeks later serve volleying behind pretty much 100% of his first serves at Wimbledon (and in the first few rounds at Wimbledon he had to worry about overcoming dangerous serve-volleyers). Clay and grass court tennis seemed like almost like different sports then. Also men’s tennis has had strong depth throughout the open era. In fact I’d say that the depth in the ATP top 100 was better in 1992 than it is 30 years later in 2022 (tennis has become a less / even loss glamorous sport for aspiring male athletes compared to team sports over time).
When Sampras won his first grand slam at the US Open 1990, in the quarter-finals he beat Lendl who mostly played from the baseline but came to the net quite a few times (more times than any of the big 3 would typically come to the net), then in the semi-finals he beat McEnroe who serve volleyed behind every 1st serve and almost every 2nd serve, and then in the final he beat Agassi who almost exclusively stayed back. So round by round he adjusted to facing elite players with drastically different styles.
When Borg won his 3 consecutive Roland Garros-Wimbledon doubles from 1978-1980, he engaged in lengthy baseline rallies in Paris before a few weeks later serve volleying behind pretty much 100% of his first serves at Wimbledon (and in the first few rounds at Wimbledon he had to worry about overcoming dangerous serve-volleyers). Clay and grass court tennis seemed like almost like different sports then. Also men’s tennis has had strong depth throughout the open era. In fact I’d say that the depth in the ATP top 100 was better in 1992 than it is 30 years later in 2022 (tennis has become a less / even loss glamorous sport for aspiring male athletes compared to team sports over time).
Last edited:
The greatest debate will be never ending and highly subjective. For me personally Federer's style of play is unparalleled in all of sport let alone tennis and the joy that has personally brought me has been immeasurable. In terms of quality again I personally believe that Federer would be one of the greatest in any era. Courts are a lot slower now which initially helped him a little but majorly helped the baseline sloggers much more. Everyone in this conversation is a true champion but I do feel from this generation he's the one that would undoubtedly win boatloads even in the serve and volley era and faster courts. But this is all highly subjective anyway. What matters is that he's retiring and it's the end of an incredible journey. What a player. I don't know if I'll adore a sportsman like that again. I'm probably too grown up now and sportsman with his quality and grace / style are simply too rare.
Federer's style of play is the greatest I've ever seen in my eyes. Aesthetically glorious.
With that being said, I struggle to think of how he is ahead of Nadal or Djokovic, even though I prefer him.
As much as I'm not a fan of the guy, by the end of their careers, I can only see Djokovic as #1.
With that being said, I struggle to think of how he is ahead of Nadal or Djokovic, even though I prefer him.
As much as I'm not a fan of the guy, by the end of their careers, I can only see Djokovic as #1.
Federer played tennis like Ronnie plays snooker and Zidane played football.
Last edited:
Saw this on twitter
Looks dodgy af right?
Looks dodgy af right?
Looks like it is a leftover of Federer's tears from 2019 Wimbledon. Sadly it was not enough for today.
Is this even a debate anymore?
CONFIRMED OFFICIAL
It’s going to be hard for anyone to beat because if someone is to emerge now that cleans up and beats the records of Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and Murrayloljk - they wont have done it in a generation where they were competing with three of Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and Murray.
Even Novak is a huge Rashford fan.
Far from his biggest fan, but he is easily the best player ever. Grand slams (and the distribution of wins), H2H record with Nadal/Federer, Number 1 weeks, ELO rating, you name it.
Yeah saw that celebration
it's spreading all over, even in cricket now.I am a huge Nadal fan but it is not even up for debate in my opinion. Djokovic is the GOAT.
It's still a bit of a debate but we have been blessed by Novak, Nadal and Federer. These have been absolutely immense for so long now.
Fed could lose pretty much all the meaningful records soon. Novak will hold all time record at AO and Nadal at FO, but Fed will have to share his if Novak wins Wimbledon, with both having 8 titles in that case. they already share tour finals record as well. the idea he will be surpassed one day sounded crazy in past, but here we are. he will have the worst case in this debate.
Djokovic easily the best ever. There just isn't a lot to debate, the numbers tell the story. I don't get excited about thinking that as he's probably the one I least enjoy watching of the three.
Federer definitely had an immense artistry to his play but in my view that's very little to do with legacy. It's simply what you did, not whether your swing looked great.
Federer definitely had an immense artistry to his play but in my view that's very little to do with legacy. It's simply what you did, not whether your swing looked great.
Exactly! Federer was just art, so graceful. Seeing how Djokovic turned his mentality and fitness around was inspiring. Glad to have been part of this era of Tennis.
Absolutely wonderful era.
22 slams? What a stat-padding try-hard.
The real ones know that Federer is the GOAT.
The real ones know that Federer is the GOAT.