Greatest mens tennis player of all time

Djoker is the GOAT, another Major final, still playing at a monumental level aged 36
 
Ultimately another title at Roland Garros last month, becoming the first man to win every grand slam at least 3 times, was more important for Djokovic’s legacy, than another Wimbledon title today.

I think with 7 Wimbledon titles he has ‘over-achieved’ there during his career.
 
GuybrushThreepwood said:
Ultimately another title at Roland Garros last month, becoming the first man to win every grand slam at least 3 times, was more important for Djokovic’s legacy, than another Wimbledon title today.

I think with 7 Wimbledon titles he has ‘over-achieved’ there during his career.
Click to expand...

I agree, the French Open being an all-time record 23rd sealed it
 
I despise Djokovic from the bottom of my soul.

Having said that, I don't understand what case can be made for anyone else being the GOAT unless Nadal makes a miracle recovery and goes on to win two more slams (Djokovic would still be ahead on everything else)
 
Last edited:
Hound Dog said:
I despise Djokovic from the bottom of my soul.

Having said that, I don't understand what case can be made for anyone else being the GOAT unleed Nadal makes a miracle recovery and goes on to win two more slams (Djokovic would still be ahead on everything else)
Click to expand...

How come?
 
Djokovic's feats in masters series events, winning a record number of them, plus all 9 of them at least twice apiece, is also a very big deal IMO.

The big 3 have played each other 68 times in those tournaments, and the big 3 plus Murray have played each other 108 times in them, so they clearly should be taken very seriously, and more than just a 'tiebreaker'.

On the flipside I do think that the ATP Finals, while still important, are not as big a deal as they used to be. When Sampras and Becker squared off in the final in Hannover in 1996, that felt huge. However the big 3 played each other so many times throughout the season in grand slams, masters series events and also in some ATP 500 events, that it hasn't felt special when they've faced each other yet against at the ATP Finals.
 
Eddy_JukeZ said:
No it's not, but I'm just wondering why.

Don't think I've seen many Serbians or people from Serbia who dislike him heavily.
Click to expand...

I dont know anything about him that is not widely known.

I find him so dislikable that it completely overrides my patriotism.
 
Novak is the GOAT with no debate. Greatest and the best male tennis player of all time.

Hope Alcaraz overtakes him one day, little solace for a Nadal fan.
 
AjaxCunian said:
Novak is the GOAT with no debate. Greatest and the best male tennis player of all time.

Hope Alcaraz overtakes him one day, little solace for a Nadal fan.
Click to expand...
I think a big part of what is going to make Djokovic immortal as the GOAT is the fact he did it in the era when Federer and Nadal were at their peak too. Two other GOAT candidates and he came out on top.

Let’s put forward a hypothetical scenario where Alcaraz spends the next 15 years cleaning up, beats all of Djokovic’s records and ends up on 35 grand slams. By all metrics he’s the best ever but I guarantee you the Internet argument will be that he would never have done it if he had even one of Nadal and Federer to compete against let alone two.
 
Pexbo said:
I think a big part of what is going to make Djokovic immortal as the GOAT is the fact he did it in the era when Federer and Nadal were at their peak too. Two other GOAT candidates and he came out on top.

Let’s put forward a hypothetical scenario where Alcaraz spends the next 15 years cleaning up, beats all of Djokovic’s records and ends up on 35 grand slams. By all metrics he’s the best ever but I guarantee you the Internet argument will be that he would never have done it if he had even one of Nadal and Federer to compete against let alone two.
Click to expand...
That would make very interesting debate ofcourse.

It's kind of what makes me put Federer at #3. And in some sense, Nadal might have had it harder than Djokovic even.

He had to play against the best versions of Federer and Djokovic. Nadal and Federer the past 8 years have struggled so much with their bodies.
 
Alcaraz has 2 titles at 20. If he wins 2 a year for the next 10 years he'll be within striking distance of Djokovic.
 
What will be fascinating is his battle with Alcaraz. If he makes it a battle and wins a handful of grandslams then it solidifies him as the goat. Even if he loses the battle he still is. He is 36!
 
ThatsGreat said:
Alcaraz has 2 titles at 20. If he wins 2 a year for the next 10 years he'll be within striking distance of Djokovic.
Click to expand...

That's a massive if. He has to win 50% of the grand slams available for the next 10 years to get there. That's a huge ask.
 
Skills said:
That's a massive if. He has to win 50% of the grand slams available for the next 10 years to get there. That's a huge ask.
Click to expand...

Yep talent wise he definitely can, but he's no stranger to physical discomfort and injury. Gotta see how he holds up long term. His style of play is also more taxing on the body than Novak's in my opinion.
 
DutchSerb said:
Yep talent wise he definitely can, but he's no stranger to physical discomfort and injury. Gotta see how he holds up long term. His style of play is also more taxing on the body than Novak's in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Yeah, his build is also quite bulky - like Rafa. Djokovic and Federer were super leany and light on their feet.

It'll be interesting to see which Grand Slam he end up making his own. Rafa had RG, Roger Wimbledon and Novak AO that they won year after year.

His best shot is actually Wimbledon - nobody else is any good on grass. So if he improves his serve, he could win it year after year without much of a struggle.
 
I think that Federer will always be "Mr. Tennis". From the way he played to his appearance and the way he conducted himself, he looked like he embodied every thing the sport is about.

I don't get the hate for Djokovic. If anything, he seemed to me more gracious in defeat than the other two. The weirdest thing about him for me (as a football and basketball fan first and foremost) is that i've learnt to associate that particular area of the Balkans with attacking quality and finesse. More with temperamental maestros and less with winning machines. Anyway, the numbers don't lie. And i still believe he'll make it to 25 grand slams by the end of his career.

Alcaraz is very exciting. The only young one who seems to have the minerals to match the accomplishments of the big-three.
 
Djokovic has the most claim to the title and it's hard to argue against it. He's an absolute force of nature, mentality and quality. Deserves all the titles he has.

That said, if you were to offer me tickets to watch a match of my choice live, I'd choose both Nadal and Federer over him.
 
Skills said:
Yeah, his build is also quite bulky - like Rafa. Djokovic and Federer were super leany and light on their feet.

It'll be interesting to see which Grand Slam he end up making his own. Rafa had RG, Roger Wimbledon and Novak AO that they won year after year.

His best shot is actually Wimbledon - nobody else is any good on grass. So if he improves his serve, he could win it year after year without much of a struggle.
Click to expand...

I think Wimbledon as well, but RG too, he looked spectacular the last time up until the cramps. Really made some good established tennis players look like beginners.
 
ThatsGreat said:
Alcaraz has 2 titles at 20. If he wins 2 a year for the next 10 years he'll be within striking distance of Djokovic.
Click to expand...
That's a big ask. Especially as it's tough to just avoid injury for 10 straight years, let alone win 2 slams a year for 10 years.
 
Andrade said:
That's a big ask. Especially as it's tough to just avoid injury for 10 straight years, let alone win 2 slams a year for 10 years.
Click to expand...
He's off to a good start though. Also doesn;t seem to have any obvious weakness, will be in contention on all surfaces like Djokovic mentioned.
 
Skills said:
Yeah, his build is also quite bulky - like Rafa. Djokovic and Federer were super leany and light on their feet.

It'll be interesting to see which Grand Slam he end up making his own. Rafa had RG, Roger Wimbledon and Novak AO that they won year after year.

His best shot is actually Wimbledon - nobody else is any good on grass. So if he improves his serve, he could win it year after year without much of a struggle.
Click to expand...
It's obviously going to the only one you didn't mention.
 
ThatsGreat said:
He's off to a good start though. Also doesn;t seem to have any obvious weakness, will be in contention on all surfaces like Djokovic mentioned.
Click to expand...
Oh I don't deny that at all, how can you get off to a better start than being the youngest man ever to be ranked number one? However it's just difficult to sustain that high a level of play over a decade plus. Just because Djokovic makes it seem normal, doesn't mean that it is.
 
B20 said:
Sampras, very closely followed by Borg.
Click to expand...

Borg was more 70s than 80s. Retired in 81.

80s was a bit of a weird era - quite a few different champions. Wilander and Lendl won 7 each - and Lendl was World number 1 for 238 weeks and made another 10 slam finals in the 80s.
 
The question is how sampras would fare against the big 3.

On clay he'd be thrashed, obviously.

I think he'd win a fair number on grass and hard court. And on the kind of grass that was used back in the 90s, I reckon only federer could have lived with him.
 
B20 said:
Sampras, very closely followed by Borg.
Click to expand...
Agree with Sampras.

I personally even consider him the greatest, perhaps tied with Federer. Some of that is because I consider his era to be the greatest era in tennis I am familiar with. Looking at all the players he had to compete with: Agassi, Rafter, Courier, Safin, Edberg, Rios, Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Rafter, Hewitt and even some "lesser" players who could beat anyone on their day like a Ivanisevic, Krajicek and Chang. Part of his weakness on clay could have to do with also having to compete with so many specialists. So many of those players by themselves would be a major get for a tournament. Have we ever had an era as rich of tennis stars as then?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.