Greatest mens tennis player of all time

This thread is more about overall career which is where most would go with Roger, as would I, but who would you take if you wanted someone to play ONE match, and you get the player at his absolute best?

I'd probably go with Djokovic, with him just edging Nadal.
 
Akash said:
Murray? Disagree massively if so. That was the best I ever saw Roddick play and if not for a bottle job in the final he'd have won the whole thing.
Click to expand...
Roddick. Surprised such a trash player beat the great Andy Murray.

Also, every loss isn't a bottle job. Just like Nadal didn't bottle the 2017 AO final. The use of that word here is hilareously wrong.
 
amolbhatia50k said:
Roddick. Surprised such a trash player beat the great Andy Murray.

Also, every loss isn't a bottle job. Just like Nadal didn't bottle the 2017 AO final. The use of that word here is hilareously wrong.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're implying. At any rate Murray is a pretty good player, better than Roddick by some distance but Roddick played a blinder of a tournament.

And I'm afraid he did bottle it that day. He had Federer's number that day and should have taken a comfortable 2-0 lead but fecked up the tie break.
 
Moby said:
This thread is more about overall career which is where most would go with Roger, as would I, but who would you take if you wanted someone to play ONE match, and you get the player at his absolute best?

I'd probably go with Djokovic, with him just edging Nadal.
Click to expand...

I'd probably go with:

Wimbey: Sampras/Federer(Sampras 90's grass, Federer 00's)
French: Nadal/Borg (probably Nadal just edges it)
USO: Federer
AO: Djokovic(Rebound Ace - Federer)
 
Akash said:
Not sure what you're implying. At any rate Murray is a pretty good player, better than Roddick by some distance but Roddick played a blinder of a tournament.

And I'm afraid he did bottle it that day. He had Federer's number that day and should have taken a comfortable 2-0 lead but fecked up the tie break.
Click to expand...
It's pretty clear. Roddick was a very good player and not the average one he's often spoken of as here.

He nearly beat Federer on grass so he did quite well even in the final. I'm sure a lot can also be put down to Federer's mental strength to win it when someone 'has his number'.
 
amolbhatia50k said:
It's pretty clear. Roddick was a very good player and not the average one he's often spoken of as here.

He nearly beat Federer on grass so he did quite well even in the final. I'm sure a lot can also be put down to Federer's mental strength to win it when someone 'has his number'.
Click to expand...

Roddick was nothing special, so I'm not surprised a lot of people don't rate him too highly. Also painfully limited. Murray is miles better as is someone like Stan and a few more players around these days.
 
Akash said:
Roddick was nothing special, so I'm not surprised a lot of people don't rate him too highly. Also painfully limited. Murray is miles better as is someone like Stan and a few more players around these days.
Click to expand...
I didn't see much of 'peak Roddick' but I imagine his personality inflates peoples opinions of him. Personally, I find him great to listen to, remember him at Wimbledon on the BBC a few years ago. I also like the way he interacts on twitter for example (a lot more interesting than Novak, Rafa and Roger for example).

Seems like a nice knowlegable chap who will happily voice his opinion.
 
saivet said:
I didn't see much of 'peak Roddick' but I imagine his personality inflates peoples opinions of him. Personally, I find him great to listen to, remember him at Wimbledon on the BBC a few years ago. I also like the way he interacts on twitter for example (a lot more interesting than Novak, Rafa and Roger for example).

Seems like a nice knowlegable chap who will happily voice his opinion.
Click to expand...

Roddick is not someone who you'll pay to watch. He also had the expectations of an entire nation to be the next #1 and next great player after Agassi and Sampras, which failing to do so, didn't win much followers. He's not as complete as Murray or Wawrinka I agree. But in his prime he had a huge forehand and serve and also good speed and movement around the court. With those qualities combined he could beat anyone on his day given practically his unbeatable serve and waiting for the opponent to have an off game in the set.

So in essence, he could go toe in toe with the best while playing his own game. Compared to Murray for example the latter is the more complete player, but the match doesn't depend on his racket. His 2nd serve is poor and he can get a lot more defensive than he has to be, sometimes getting overpowered.

I don't like either styles. Off court Roddick however is one of my favorite players. He's funny, has some valuable input and generally is a top bloke.
 


Just something to chew on while we analyse Roddick. Kind of agree with you @Akash but somehow he could be very effective when he wanted to be.
 
Raees said:


Just something to chew on while we analyse Roddick. Kind of agree with you @Akash but somehow he could be very effective when he wanted to be.
Click to expand...


He didnt have enough weapons to be more than he was imo. Neutralize his serve and there wasn't much else left. Effective player when on his game certainly and very consistent. But at peak levels I think there have been lots of better players not to won grand slams.
 
Akash said:
He didnt have enough weapons to be more than he was imo. Neutralize his serve and there wasn't much else left. Effective player when on his game certainly and very consistent. But at peak levels I think there have been lots of better players not to won grand slams.
Click to expand...
He was a two trick pony if you can say that. His serve and forehand. His forehands were huge at the time. Later in his career he began to add more topspin and they were more loopy and not as good as they used to be.
 
Judging by the knowledge of the guys on here, a davis cup style draft wouldn't be a bad idea haha
 
If there was a difficulty multiplier across all slams won by each of these players and then the total aggregated, Djokovic would be number 1.
 
zing said:
If there was a difficulty multiplier across all slams won by each of these players and then the total aggregated, Djokovic would be number 1.
Click to expand...

Why not put one together and show your calculations?
 
FWIW, Djokovic & Nadal both have a stronger claim to be the best players of all time. Federer's longevity, wins & overall impact on the game makes him the greatest of all time
 
In basically every sport, in the "best ever" discussion, being most successful usually takes a back seat to how that success was earned. People value entertainment, risk, and imagination, and tennis is no different.

That's why the vast majority consider Federer as the greatest, not just because of his grand slam haul, but because of the way he plays.
 
Alock1 said:
Why not put one together and show your calculations?
Click to expand...

You'd think he's the one who'd lose out the most. His best surface is obviously hard courts, and unlike Fed or Nadal he got 2 shots at it per year to rack them up.
 
How will you guys do your rankings when all the doping revelations drop in 5-7 years when theres no more money to be milked from a certain few? So the tour won't protect them anymore.
 
Raoul said:
Good work Rafa. Cementing that #2 all time role nicely. ;)
Click to expand...
Better than Sampras?

He is now second all time in grand slams, but it has by far the worst distributions of grand slams. He has won only 4 grand slams outside of French Open.

I think that there hasn't ever been a player who was good in some type of pitch as Nadal in clay, but outside of clay, Nadal has hardly that a great record (for comparison, Federer has 11 grand slams outside of grass).

Also, isn't Wimbledon considered a bit more important than the other three grand slams?
 
Skills said:
How would it work?
Click to expand...
Alock1 said:
Why not put one together and show your calculations?
Click to expand...

I assume the second post is sarcastic, but anyway.. if you look at Djokovic's opponents in slam finals he's won, it's Tsonga, Murray 5x, 3x Nadal/Federer. If you assign a player rating to his opponents at the point in which he beat them, it'd liekly come out to be higher value than the slams someone like Federer has racked up.

You can make it much more complicated, by quantifying the player rating in your own way based on player's record/peak etc.. but just the sheer talent against which he won his slams is outstanding.

Federer was outstanding in his prime and some of the tennis he played against Nadal was out of this planet, but a number of his slams he didn't have many good challengers. There's no way to quantify how Federer would've done if he'd actually had better opponents but in terms of how people actually did beating what they were up against, Djokovic did brilliantly.
 
Last edited:
Revan said:
Better than Sampras?

He is now second all time in grand slams, but it has by far the worst distributions of grand slams. He has won only 4 grand slams outside of French Open.

I think that there hasn't ever been a player who was good in some type of pitch as Nadal in clay, but outside of clay, Nadal has hardly that a great record (for comparison, Federer has 11 grand slams outside of grass).

Also, isn't Wimbledon considered a bit more important than the other three grand slams?
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with this although one could argue that Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic each ate into the other's stats since they all played overlappingly during the same period of time. Sampras didn't really have a comparable rival in that regard. Agassi may have been the closest but he went missing for a few years in the mid 90s and the only others were the likes of Edberg, Becker, Rafter (the former two were well past their prime and Rafter was not nearly in the category that the likes of Djokovic have been).

In terms of who is GOAT, its easily Federer in that when the next big player in men's tennis comes up and starts to rival the likes of Rafa and Fed in terms of slams, they will always have to deal with Roger's 18 (or more). Going forward, no player will ever be considered GOAT unless they eclipse Federer's slam numbers.
 
Revan said:
Better than Sampras?

He is now second all time in grand slams, but it has by far the worst distributions of grand slams. He has won only 4 grand slams outside of French Open.

I think that there hasn't ever been a player who was good in some type of pitch as Nadal in clay, but outside of clay, Nadal has hardly that a great record (for comparison, Federer has 11 grand slams outside of grass).

Also, isn't Wimbledon considered a bit more important than the other three grand slams?
Click to expand...
Five. Sampras has won two more (outside Wimbledone) but none on clay. I'd say Rafa's collection is more impressive. Not to mention the opponents he won them against and his general ability - both of which I'd rate higher.
 
Nadal is by far the best clay courter ever. However, his poor return (compared to the other GOAT candidates) outside the French hurts him. He's a ways behind Fed right now IMO
 
zing said:
I assume the second post is sarcastic, but anyway.. if you look at Djokovic's opponents in slam finals he's won, it's Tsonga, Murray 5x, 3x Nadal/Federer. If you assign a player rating to his opponents at the point in which he beat them, it'd liekly come out to be higher value than the slams someone like Federer has racked up.

You can make it much more complicated, by quantifying the player rating in your own way based on player's record/peak etc.. but just the sheer talent against which he won his slams is outstanding.

Federer was outstanding in his prime and some of the tennis he played against Nadal was out of this planet, but a number of his slams he didn't have many good challengers. There's no way to quantify how Federer would've done if he'd actually had better opponents but in terms of how people actually did beating what they were up against, Djokovic did brilliantly.
Click to expand...

Do you know there actually is a ranking for tennis players? One if I remember correctly Federer has the record being in the top #1 the longest. Do know the exactly algorithm but players do gain rating by winning matches and lose rating if they lose (duh), and unless you come with a better rating system you're just speculating stuff as the current system is already more objective, and complete, to what you're trying to claim here.

What you're more or less trying to suggest is to implement the ELO rating system (which it takes into account the 'difficulty' of who you're facing) but even I hardly doubt using a different system is going to make a difference rating someone like Federer higher than Djokovic.
 
For me anyone who comes into the discussion of the greatest needs to have won on all surfaces bare minimum and been competitive on every surface.

Those criticising Nadal record outside Clay need to realise he's been competing with Federer Djokovic and Murray on their best surfaces and pushing them to the wire, besting them on many occasions when at his best physically. He's never been smashed on weaker surfaces for him like Federer got destroyed on clay by him.

For me Djoko recent slump just proves that he was never Nadal and Federer level as mentally he's not been as consistent as them across breadth of his career. Only injuries held them back not mental frailties.
 
Why are people discounting Nadal because he's only won 5 slams outside other surfaces. Sampras only won 7 by that logic, so not really a huge difference. Nadal has been in countless finals on other surfaces. He's also won countless hard court masters. Not like he's been piss poor in them. He also beat Federer at his favourite slam. Something Federer couldn't do to him. He also won the olympics on hardcourts.

Connors won 8 in total. Should we discount his favourite grandslam too? Becker won six in total. Lendl won 8 in total.

We should remove Djokovics hard court grand slams. He's then left with four.

I don't think people are giving the guy enough credit. Djokovic and Federer weren't some piss poor clay court players. Any other generation and they would have probably won 3 or 4 french opens.
 
Bojan11 said:
Why are people discounting Nadal because he's only won 5 slams outside other surfaces. Sampras only won 7 by that logic, so not really a huge difference. Nadal has been in countless finals on other surfaces. He's also won countless hard court masters. Not like he's been piss poor in them. He also beat Federer at his favourite slam. Something Federer couldn't do to him. He also won the olympics on hardcourts.

Connors won 8 in total. Should we discount his favourite grandslam too? Becker won six in total. Lendl won 8 in total.

We should remove Djokovics hard court grand slams. He's then left with four.

I don't think people are giving the guy enough credit. Djokovic and Federer weren't some piss poor clay court players. Any other generation and they would have probably won 3 or 4 french opens.
Click to expand...

Personally I don't think its a big deal. What is paramount is that Rafa has won 15, which should comfortably put him in 2nd place in the GOAT discussions, above the likes of Sampras et al.
 
Rafa is better on clay than Federer is on grass, which is probably why Rafa was able to beat Federer at Wimbledon and not vica versa. That shouldn't be a decisive factor though. I rate Federer as the GOAT with Nadal a close second, but unless he overtakes him in total grand slams (which I can see him do if he keeps focusing on Roland Garros), he'll stay in second place for me.
 
Raoul said:
Personally I don't think its a big deal. What is paramount is that Rafa has won 15, which should comfortably put him in 2nd place in the GOAT discussions, above the likes of Sampras et al.
Click to expand...

Hypothetically(because I dont believe he will) but if rafa overtakes federer's grand slam record will you consider him the GOAT?
 
MJJ said:
Hypothetically(because I dont believe he will) but if rafa overtakes federer's grand slam record will you consider him the GOAT?
Click to expand...

Yeah it would be hard not to. If he matches Fed's overall ATP tournament titles then it would be even more definitive. Fed currently has 91 and Rafa 73.
 
Sammyjunn said:
Im a 100% Nadal fan but Federer is the GOAT, even though I think when both in their peak, Nadal was better than Federer. Federer's longevity, playing style, approach of the game and grand slams makes him the GOAT for me.
Click to expand...

Pretty much sums up my view as well.
 
Raoul said:
Yeah it would be hard not to. If he matches Fed's overall ATP tournament titles then it would be even more definitive. Fed currently has 91 and Rafa 73.
Click to expand...

Hmmm I would still have federer above him (this as a nadal fan) due to his playing style, federer had that class and grace alongside the numbers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.