in the long run, people will remember this first and foremost though. there’s always a mysticism around the best ever. people who were there at the time make it sound like they were superhuman and you needed to be there to witness it. it’s about the whole package, not just first serve return percentages. people will remember him as being good, but a bit of a knobber, and for that reason, nadal and federer will be held in higher esteem.
Greatest mens tennis player of all time
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
in the long run, people will remember this first and foremost though. there’s always a mysticism around the best ever. people who were there at the time make it sound like they were superhuman and you needed to be there to witness it. it’s about the whole package, not just first serve return percentages. people will remember him as being good, but a bit of a knobber, and for that reason, nadal and federer will be held in higher esteem.
I think ultimately you are right. I'm not a basketball fan so can't really comment but I was listening to a podcast where they were talking about Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and saying as great as he was, because he's not very likeable - he's not talked about in the same way other greats are. In Novak's case I don't think he is hated but there is generally a lack of warmth towards him personality and tennis aesthetics related I think.
1. Djokovic
2. Nadal
3. Federer
It's almost poetic Nadal is 2nd because he's pretty much spent his entire career there first to Federer and then Djokovic. The greatest underdog in tennis history.
If you put a list of the 10 greatest tennis matches of the last 20 years Nadal features in as many as anyone. And if it's the top 5 he arguably he features in most of them.
Wimbledon 2008
Australian Open Final 2009
Australian Open 2012
Roland Garros 2013
Wimbledon 2019
Wimbledon 2014
Nadal Verdasco AO 2009 SF
Australian Open 2017
Wimbledon 2007
Fed Djokovic USO 2010 SF
7/10 feature Nadal
7/10 feature Fed
5/10 feature Djokovic
Nadal coming through as a teenager, putting up a fight and then eventually usurping Federer is what made this era interesting to start with. And then eventually his battle as Djokovic's biggest foe to stop him clearing everything for the next decade.
2. Nadal
3. Federer
It's almost poetic Nadal is 2nd because he's pretty much spent his entire career there first to Federer and then Djokovic. The greatest underdog in tennis history.
If you put a list of the 10 greatest tennis matches of the last 20 years Nadal features in as many as anyone. And if it's the top 5 he arguably he features in most of them.
Wimbledon 2008
Australian Open Final 2009
Australian Open 2012
Roland Garros 2013
Wimbledon 2019
Wimbledon 2014
Nadal Verdasco AO 2009 SF
Australian Open 2017
Wimbledon 2007
Fed Djokovic USO 2010 SF
7/10 feature Nadal
7/10 feature Fed
5/10 feature Djokovic
Nadal coming through as a teenager, putting up a fight and then eventually usurping Federer is what made this era interesting to start with. And then eventually his battle as Djokovic's biggest foe to stop him clearing everything for the next decade.
He's probably the best ever, the one I'd ask to represent me in a trial-by-tennis for my life. He's not the one I'd be most eager to pay money to watch. That's Federer, followed by Sampras.
One match that I think is underrated, possibly as it was played across two days and a SF was the 2018 Wimbledon SF between Djokovic and Nadal. In terms of the level played by both, I think it was one of the best matches I've ever seen. I'd personally have that one in above Wimbledon 2019 or AO 2017. Less iconic and less drama in the final set but in terms of the quality of tennis played throughout, I think it was better than both.
I am biased but I do think that Nadal has probably played in more 'classic' matches whether up against Djokovic or Federer or against other players.
provided he wins Wimbledon this year, Djokovic would have good chance to retire with most titles at two different grand slam tournaments.
Federer, it's not even close.
Djok is playing against the weakest mens field at the moment we've seen. Fed constantly played the greatest and won.
Plus wasn't a massive dickhead.
Djok is playing against the weakest mens field at the moment we've seen. Fed constantly played the greatest and won.
Plus wasn't a massive dickhead.
I hope he doesn't. There is a beautiful balance now with each of the top 3 being the master on one surface. I also think the surfaces symbolically fit their personalities
Last edited:
Made my day
I've no dog in the race, but didn't Fed's early ones come at a time where the fields were weak? Nadal and Djokovic hadn't emerged, Agassi and Sampras were old men and the best of the rest like Hewitt and Roddick just weren't that good?
Federer against Roddick was an embarrasment for Roddick. Federer absolutely wiped the floor with him. 21-3 in H2H. 8-0 in grand slams, 4 of them in finals.
Nalbandian was the only one back then who could give Federer a game, and he was just too erratic to be a top competitor.
Nalbandian was the only one back then who could give Federer a game, and he was just too erratic to be a top competitor.
Last edited:
Michael Jordan was a bully and a bit of a knobhead as well, easy to dislike for his personality - but it isn't used against him at all in the GOAT conversation.
And Kareem is definitely talked about in the same way as other greats - you won't find many people who have him outside their top 3 of all-time, and he's recognized as arguably the greatest college player of all-time as well.
The difference between individual sports and team sports is that there's less room for interpretation. If there are weight-classes or different disciplines things may be more open to discussion, but this is not the case with tennis. You're left with the discussion of which era is better, but the top 3 all played in the same era so this doesn't work either.
It's a tough pill to swallow for us Federer and Nadal fans but the discussion should be over now. The only option left is to discuss semantics (BOAT vs GOAT).
It's a tough pill to swallow for us Federer and Nadal fans but the discussion should be over now. The only option left is to discuss semantics (BOAT vs GOAT).
Federer isn't really part of the same era as the other two.
If you have to make an argument for him the best one is that in his prime he was the most dominant of the three. In the space of 7 years between 2003 and 2010 he won 16 grand slams. Only Nadal stopped him from two consecutive calendar slams in 2006 and 2007.
He was already past his best when Djokovic started winning.
I would back the Federer of that time to beat the Djokovic of the mid and late 2010's although it would be tight.
If you have to make an argument for him the best one is that in his prime he was the most dominant of the three. In the space of 7 years between 2003 and 2010 he won 16 grand slams. Only Nadal stopped him from two consecutive calendar slams in 2006 and 2007.
He was already past his best when Djokovic started winning.
I would back the Federer of that time to beat the Djokovic of the mid and late 2010's although it would be tight.
To be fair to Federer, and at least, early Nadal - he had to adapt to varying different playing styles still, in single tournaments. You don't have to do that much more, all organisers prefer rallies over aces or quick winners, and that's only because it seems what gets the interest of the fans more - you just follow the interest, since that's where the money comes from. Therefor, adjustments have been made to allow for this, although it's not to the extreme some make out... Wimbledon is still faster than the others and what not. But still, clay court specialists that could barely hold that form elsewhere, say like Kuerten and Muster, would be much better off playing today.... while someone like Sampras would not be as proficient, at least without making adjustments to his game.
Part of Federer's late career surge was down to the fact he was able to shorten points with ultra aggression, so it's still a style capable of succeeding, but that's Federer, and he succeeded when Novak was off the boil.. so it's questionable whether there's a true calling for that level of aggression to return in a post-Novak world.
past his best at 26? only a year after he won 3 grand slam tournaments? maybe the opponents just got tougher.
This is surely a backwards argument. Fed picked up a lot of slams in that 04-08 period when there was definitely a lack of top competition. Novak is now doing something similar but In the period when the big 4 were at their peak (2010-2016), slams won/losing finals were as follows:
Novak - 11 (7)
Rafa - 8 (4)
Murray - 3 (7)
Fed - 2 (4)
Great tennis player but Fed is clearly the 3rd best of the big 3. Agree he’s far more likeable than Novak though!
When there's a clear difference in accomplishments (slams won, weeks at number 1, consecutive weeks at 1, major tournaments won), the subjective argument about strength of opponents (not invalid, in my opinion) loses some weight.
2010:
16 - Federer
9 - Nadal
1 - Djokovic
2020:
20 - Federer
20 - Nadal
17 - Djokovic
2023:
23 - Djokovic
22 - Nadal
20 - Federer
16 - Federer
9 - Nadal
1 - Djokovic
2020:
20 - Federer
20 - Nadal
17 - Djokovic
2023:
23 - Djokovic
22 - Nadal
20 - Federer
I'm talking after 2010. Federer won only 4 titles from 2010 till retirement.
He might as well have been Del Potro or Murray or any other player. That is why I find it difficult to understand why people put him in the same era as Djokovic or Nadal just because he lasted long. He doesn't belong in the same era.
Last edited:
It’s a bit of shame Djokovic is seen as a massive “knob” by a lot of fans. I don’t see why, personally. His mid game celebrations don’t seem any more extravagant than say Nadals, and arguably, he’s had to psyche himself up more as the crowd is rarely in his favour. He comes across extremely well balanced and respectful in interviews, and quite frankly, less boring than a lot of others. Seems weird that accepted nice guys like Tom Brady and Jay Shetty would be good friends with a supposed unlikeable character.
Anyway, definitely the GOAT.
Anyway, definitely the GOAT.
Last edited:
All this shows is that that they're all a bit overrated. Federer won before Djokovic. Djokovic won after Federer. Nadal faced both but was a clay merchant.
Sampras, McEnroe, Borg, Connors, Agassi. Those are the real GOATs.
My argument has nothing to do with the quality of opponent.
I'm talking about the level of dominance and peak. You're talking about efficiency and quality over a long period of time. Djokovic has been undeniably prolific in his 30's and deservedly has those accomplishments but his slams are still more spread over a longer time frame.
The speed at which Federer accumulated his titles isn't talked about enough. 16 slams in just 7 years. Only another all timer prevented him from reaching 20 in just 7 years. That level of domination is not normal.
I'm not saying Federer is better than Djokovic by the way but if we are strictly talking peak for peak I'm putting my money on Federer.
Last edited:
He still played at a high level from 2010, he just often found himself getting beat by either Nadal or Djokovic. I don't know the stats but I imagine he lost to Nadal or Djokovic at least 10 times since 2010 in the SF or F. It's not like we just had the tail end of Federer competiting with these guys, he definitely competed in a good portion of their era too.
Sampras was only really a serve and volley player on grass. On hard court, I think he was simply the complete package utilising all aspects of the game.
No different to tiger and jack. Tiger is better than Jack and it’s not close… he just doesn’t have 4 more majors to back it up.
I do think that each of the big 3’s grand slam counts are slightly 'inflated', with each of them benefitting from surface homogenisation meaning that it wasn't as difficult for them to be as competitive and as consistent across all major surfaces compared to previous greats (and allowing them to make fewer adjustments to their game from surface to surface - Borg played a drastically different style at Wimbledon compared to at RG), and a huge dearth of talented young players emerging to challenge them and effective black hole (the group of players born in the early 90s were especially weak, taking an eternity to overtake the likes of Ferrer and Berdych). Plus they also benefitted from fewer changes in racket and string technology during their careers. Previous legends had to deal with the transition from wood to graphite, poly strings etc., while in comparison any such advancements have been pretty minimal since the mid 00s.
Of course they are all amazing legends, have enjoyed insanely good careers, and deserve plenty of praise. But numerous factors have benefitted them all in terms of racking up enormous grand slam time title counts. And as said before, slam counting only became the be all and end all, when the slams increased their prize money relative to other tournaments (when Connors and Borg were active numerous other tournaments paid out greater prize money than the slams, in many cases by a pretty big margin), and also when Sampras closed in on Roy Emerson’s record which previously was not considered to be a big deal.
Of course they are all amazing legends, have enjoyed insanely good careers, and deserve plenty of praise. But numerous factors have benefitted them all in terms of racking up enormous grand slam time title counts. And as said before, slam counting only became the be all and end all, when the slams increased their prize money relative to other tournaments (when Connors and Borg were active numerous other tournaments paid out greater prize money than the slams, in many cases by a pretty big margin), and also when Sampras closed in on Roy Emerson’s record which previously was not considered to be a big deal.
I tend to agree.
After Rodger won his first Major and went on his run he was as close as I have seen to perfection when it came to Tennis.
Surely it’s got to be Serena Williams when you consider longevity and domination
Did you read the title?
Like with all titles, I read every word except the second word
Good post with a lot of intelligent comment. If you just take the French and Wimbledon, one was extremely slow courts and the other was extremely fast. The serve and volley that used to be the staple of Wimbledon has completely disappeared.
I do recall the most slams = GOAT thing beginning with Sampras, when he passed Emerson (who was never ever called the GOAT by anybody) and then when Federer passed Sampras, people started calling him the GOAT, and then when Rafa passed Federer, people started calling him the GOAT and now people are calling Djokovic the GOAT. But before Sampras, people used to talk about Laver and Borg, who for contextual era reasons have less slams than Enerson, just like Graf and Martina have less slams than Court for contextual era reasons, though people never thought that Court was better than them.
Serve and volley tennis in my opinion was the worst. Huge tennis fans miss it and are very nostalgic about it but to me it was a borefest... Especially if both players would serve and volley.
Greatest of all time is a shallow discussion. All time greats are all time greats and comparing different eras is not fair. It will never be fair.
For me the greatest ever are: Borg, Sampras, Agassi, Djokovic, Federer and Nadal. Big respect for Becker, McEnroe, Lendl, Edberg, Connors but they are in the second tier of greatness. Why Agassi is in the top tier and not in the second tier? Well, he fought against Sampras in some epic matches and has won all 4 slams when it was extremely hard to do that.
As far as Laver goes and old legends... I never even watched their highlights let alone their matches so it is hard to comment on them.
Greatest of all time is a shallow discussion. All time greats are all time greats and comparing different eras is not fair. It will never be fair.
For me the greatest ever are: Borg, Sampras, Agassi, Djokovic, Federer and Nadal. Big respect for Becker, McEnroe, Lendl, Edberg, Connors but they are in the second tier of greatness. Why Agassi is in the top tier and not in the second tier? Well, he fought against Sampras in some epic matches and has won all 4 slams when it was extremely hard to do that.
As far as Laver goes and old legends... I never even watched their highlights let alone their matches so it is hard to comment on them.
I do miss serve and volley a bit but I can recognise that the grass game is probably better with a slower court. I just have nostalgic memories of seeing Becker diving for volleys at the net when I was a kid.
Anyone including Djokovic in the GOAT conversation needs to have a word with themselves.
Agreed.
Borg's achievement to complete the RG-Wimbledon double 3 years in a row from 1978-1980 was amazing. He won those RG titles engaging in long, gruelling and seemingly never-ending baseline rallies, and then a few weeks later won those Wimbledon titles serve-volleying behind pretty much 100% of 1st serves and playing considerably more aggressively.
The likes of Borg, Connors etc. being defined / solely defined by the number of grand slam titles that they won makes zero sense. And the prize money factor cannot be emphasised enough. In 1980 for example, Borg earned greater prize money after winning a tournament in Boca Raton, than he earned combined from RG (where he won the title without dropping a set), Wimbledon (where he won the title beating McEnroe in their legendary final) and the US Open (where he finished as the runner-up with McEnroe getting his revenge). Lendl earned greater prize money from winning an invitational tournament in Antwerp in 1985 (actually the biggest prize money cheque in tennis history at the time), than he earned combined from RG (where was the runner-up), Wimbledon (where he lost in the 4th round) and the US Open (where he won the title). If there were so many other tournaments around nowadays that paid out greater prize money than the grand slams, and in some cases greater prize money than multiple grand slams combined, would grand slam counting still be seen as such a big deal? I strongly doubt it.
Chris Evert voluntarily skipped RG for 3 years during the 70s (when she was literally never losing on clay and would have been the overwhelming favourite), to play in World Team Tennis which offered much greater prize money, and Borg did likewise 1 year during the 70s as well. When asked why she did that, Evert responded 'no-one was counting back then'.
Great post and very informative. As a kid, I used to watch Martina routinely bully Evert on grass and I had no idea that Evert was so dominant on clay because extensive TV coverage was reserved only for Wimbledon. RG may have been on TV then but I don't remember watching it.
The fantastic Borg v McEnroe match that you refer to is the one they always used to trot out during rain delays. The Golden King Borg being challenged by this gifted young mouthy upstart in Johnny Mac. With the rackets they were using, it was virtually a different sport from what they do now.
@Andrade @GuybrushThreepwood
Correct me if I’m wrong, but they slowed Wimbledon down in the early to mid 00s, and I think Federers first Wimbledon title win consisted of a lot of serve and volleying. The likes of Nadal and other clay court specialists wouldn’t have had a look in were it not for this, which is why I never had him as the GOAT even when he led the slam count. Djokovic Im has shown he is very adept at the faster surfaces such as the WTF, but not sure if he’s ever consistently had to serve and volley at any point?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but they slowed Wimbledon down in the early to mid 00s, and I think Federers first Wimbledon title win consisted of a lot of serve and volleying. The likes of Nadal and other clay court specialists wouldn’t have had a look in were it not for this, which is why I never had him as the GOAT even when he led the slam count. Djokovic Im has shown he is very adept at the faster surfaces such as the WTF, but not sure if he’s ever consistently had to serve and volley at any point?
I'm a tennis casual fan, but it seems like a good comparison I think. Kareem had probably the best career of all-time, but maybe only the 2nd or 3rd highest peak, which many people seem to feel about Djokovic (though he had that crazy 2015 year so I'm not sure it's fair to say Federer had a higher peak). I'm much more sympathetic personally/politically to Kareem than Djokovic, but I agree that they'll likely be talked about less. For example, it's easy to imagine a Last Dance style documentary on Federer being a huge deal in pop culture, but a Djokovic one is tough to see happening.
Also, Jordan and Federer were more fun to watch than Kareem or Djokovic, and Lebron and Nadal too for my money.
I feel Djokovic now has it..
1. Djokovic
2. Federer
3. Nadal
Federer and Nadal are very close. Djokovic is just a machine though, relentless and edges it for that reason.
1. Djokovic
2. Federer
3. Nadal
Federer and Nadal are very close. Djokovic is just a machine though, relentless and edges it for that reason.