Nadal
Federer
Borg
Djoker
Federer
Borg
Djoker
Greatest mens tennis player of all time
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Then again Rafa does have more Masters 1000 titles.
Still Federer, winning 5+ slams in 3/4 opens seals it for me, also the way he's adapted so late in his career and beating a younger Nadal in Melbourne is insane.
Would have Fed above Nadal, even if Nadal surpasses him in GS by winning French Open another 4 times. If he wins 4 other GS outside of FO, then he'll be the goat in my eyes.
Thing is, he is already by far the best player ever in FO. Winning it a few other times won't change anything IMO. He needs to win outside of it to surpass Federer.
Thing is, he is already by far the best player ever in FO. Winning it a few other times won't change anything IMO. He needs to win outside of it to surpass Federer.
Grand Slam tournaments[edit]
Career totals[edit]
Finals #
1.
Roger Federer 28
2.
Rafael Nadal 22
3.
Novak Djokovic 21
4.
Ivan Lendl 19
5.
Pete Sampras 18
6.
Björn Borg 16
Semifinals #
1. Roger Federer 41
2. Jimmy Connors 31
Novak Djokovic
4. Ivan Lendl 28
5. Andre Agassi 26
6. Rafael Nadal 25
Quarterfinals #
1. Roger Federer 49
2. Jimmy Connors 41
3. Novak Djokovic 38
4. Andre Agassi 36
5./ Ivan Lendl 34
6. Rafael Nadal 31
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Era_tennis_records_–_men's_singles
Just looking over the records, it's not just Federer's GS wins it's also his superhuman consistency, he's so far ahead in terms of getting into the latter stages of GS tournaments.
Career totals[edit]
Finals #
1.
Roger Federer 282.
Rafael Nadal 223.
Novak Djokovic 214.
Ivan Lendl 195.
Pete Sampras 186.
Björn Borg 16Semifinals #
1.
Roger Federer 412.
Jimmy Connors 31 Novak Djokovic4.
Ivan Lendl 285.
Andre Agassi 266.
Rafael Nadal 25Quarterfinals #
1.
Roger Federer 492.
Jimmy Connors 413.
Novak Djokovic 384.
Andre Agassi 365.
/ Ivan Lendl 346.
Rafael Nadal 31https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Era_tennis_records_–_men's_singles
Just looking over the records, it's not just Federer's GS wins it's also his superhuman consistency, he's so far ahead in terms of getting into the latter stages of GS tournaments.
Connors basically has 12 years straight of quarter finals runs.....but he pretty much skipped the Australian and French throughout his peak. He started the trend of insane consistency, Lendl followed suit, no one really did it in the 90's, then Federer just killed it. Borg was solid as an ox too, but didn't have the sustained longevity as he clearly didn't like new young challengers and/or the willingness to train so hard to maintain his levels....on top of essentially no showing Australia too.
Connors, McEnroe, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic is my top 7(tier 1/1.5) in no order. Lendl, Agassi, Murray would likely round up a top 10 but definitely a tier behind, with the other swedes Mats and Edberg and Becker on the outside I think in tier 3.
I tend to ignore pre 70's due to my complete lack of knowledge, and the fact that outside that it didn't seem overly deep.
Connors, McEnroe, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic is my top 7(tier 1/1.5) in no order. Lendl, Agassi, Murray would likely round up a top 10 but definitely a tier behind, with the other swedes Mats and Edberg and Becker on the outside I think in tier 3.
I tend to ignore pre 70's due to my complete lack of knowledge, and the fact that outside that it didn't seem overly deep.
Yeah but Federer also hasn't been consistently knocked out in the first or second round at the French the way Nadal has been at Wimbledon since 2011.
I think Nadal is behind Federer in terms of being the GOAT. He's the greatest clay court player of all time though.
I think most of those exits, there was a deeper-lying injury issue behind it, but happy to be proven wrong.
PS - I also have Federer ahead of Nadal, so my point was more about Nadal v Sampras.
Heres an odd one, have the big 4 genuinely played each other in every tournament except for the endless wait of Federer-Nadal in the US Open?
Some of the stuff preventing that happening is mad too, Murrays first final in 08, DelPo absolutely crushing Nadal in 09, the double Djokovic 5 setter blows in 2010/11 and Robredo's straight setting of Fed in 2013....it's like the gods don't want it to happen. It hasn't been in sight since that Robredo embarrassment.
It would seem Federer-Murray haven't played on clay at all, makes sense really as Murray's progression on the surface has only been recently, essentially when Federer's decided against clay any more.
Some of the stuff preventing that happening is mad too, Murrays first final in 08, DelPo absolutely crushing Nadal in 09, the double Djokovic 5 setter blows in 2010/11 and Robredo's straight setting of Fed in 2013....it's like the gods don't want it to happen. It hasn't been in sight since that Robredo embarrassment.
It would seem Federer-Murray haven't played on clay at all, makes sense really as Murray's progression on the surface has only been recently, essentially when Federer's decided against clay any more.
Can't think of a Murray - Federer match at the French.
If you continued reading....
Lendl <3
Nadal had to just hold on to 3 more service games in that 5th set in Australia and he might have been heading into Wimbledon looking to join Federer on 17 Slams. Such tiny margins!
1. Roger Federer
2. Rafael Nadal
3. Björn Borg
4. Novak Djokovic
5. Pete Sampras
6. Ivan Lendl
7. Rod Laver
8. Jimmy Connors
9. John McEnroe
10. Pacho Gonzales
2. Rafael Nadal
3. Björn Borg
4. Novak Djokovic
5. Pete Sampras
6. Ivan Lendl
7. Rod Laver
8. Jimmy Connors
9. John McEnroe
10. Pacho Gonzales
That's an insane logic to give especially since there have been multiple times when Roger has lost to Nadal after leading a tie break.
Decent list, but Pancho and Laver would be rated higher by most experts. Laver would certainly get ahead of Lendl in most people's lists and having watched Laver play, he had a timeless very modern style which I think > Lendl.
No logic really in the statement. Just regret and disappointment he couldn't hold on in that final set.
You have Wimbledon 08 and AO 09, let us have AO 16.
Decided to minimize pre-1969 fully professional Open era results - which affects Laver and Pacho in an adverse way. Just think that things would be more uniform with this approach, even though you could argue that Laver would have won 20+ Grand Slams, if not for his professional tour ban in 1963. If we consider the totality of Laver's career, then yeah, he'd likely be in the Top 3, if not the Top 2 with Roger.
All time Championship... consists of 3 Slams (Grass, Hard-Court, Clay)
In an 8 man tournament, everyone at peak fitness and based on how they'd fare in head to heads as well as success levels on their respective surface. I've taken Pancho out of it because a) haven't seen enough of him play but b) his playing style, just doesn't have a timeless feel to it and I think he'd get found out in the modern game.
Therefore my top 8 would be Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Borg, Laver, Sampras, Connors, Lendl. The way I would award points is on competitiveness (based on (in order of priority) chances of winning overall tournament, getting to the final, getting to semis, not getting thrashed against the best players on that surface, how they'd fare against the other challengers), so the less competitive someone is on any given surface, I would award them less points out of 10.
Clay
Nadal would win anyone bar none. I'd fancy Borg to finish runner up, and Laver/Federer and Lendl as the other semi finalists. Djokovic is also very competitive on clay, but Federer would have had a number of french opens had Nadal not existed and likewise Laver but with Ken Rosewall.
Nadal - 10/10
Borg - 9.5/10
Lendl - 9/10
Laver - 8/10
Federer - 8/10
Djokovic - 7.5/10
Connors - 5.5/10
Sampras - 4/10
Hard Court
Federer to win, edging out Djokovic. I'd have Lendl/Connors and Sampras as the losing semi finalists, but the key here is that both Laver and Nadal could conceivably beat anyone on this surface. Nadal has it in him to beat anyone on hard courts in his prime and could go 5 sets with anyone including prime Fed.
Federer - 10/10
Djokovic - 10/10
Sampras - 9.5/10
Lendl - 9/10
Connors - 9/10
Laver - 8.5/10
Nadal - 8.5/10
Laver - 8/10
Borg - 6/10
Grass Court
Federer would arguably reign supreme, edging out both Pete and Laver/Borg.. would be difficult to differentiate the latter two, I reckon Fed would find it harder to beat the cerebral Laver/Borg than the machine-like Pistol Pete but on a faster surface, it would almost always go tie break and it would be so hard to break Pete's ridonkulous serve.
I think Nadal would again be very competitive against everyone, might struggle v Pete on a fast surface but he'd give anyone a game. Connors is pretty competitive too, but Lendl and Djoko would bring up the rear in this instance.
Federer - 10/10
Sampras - 10/10
Laver - 9.5
Borg - 9.5
Nadal - 8.5/10
Connors - 8.5/10
Djokovic - 7/10
Lendl - 6/10
Summary
I'd have Borg and Djoko in the chasing pack, and I'd have Sampras 6th.. although his clay court lack of prowess, puts him behind Lendl who has the better all-court game.
In an 8 man tournament, everyone at peak fitness and based on how they'd fare in head to heads as well as success levels on their respective surface. I've taken Pancho out of it because a) haven't seen enough of him play but b) his playing style, just doesn't have a timeless feel to it and I think he'd get found out in the modern game.
Therefore my top 8 would be Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Borg, Laver, Sampras, Connors, Lendl. The way I would award points is on competitiveness (based on (in order of priority) chances of winning overall tournament, getting to the final, getting to semis, not getting thrashed against the best players on that surface, how they'd fare against the other challengers), so the less competitive someone is on any given surface, I would award them less points out of 10.
Clay
Nadal would win anyone bar none. I'd fancy Borg to finish runner up, and Laver/Federer and Lendl as the other semi finalists. Djokovic is also very competitive on clay, but Federer would have had a number of french opens had Nadal not existed and likewise Laver but with Ken Rosewall.
Nadal - 10/10
Borg - 9.5/10
Lendl - 9/10
Laver - 8/10
Federer - 8/10
Djokovic - 7.5/10
Connors - 5.5/10
Sampras - 4/10
Hard Court
Federer to win, edging out Djokovic. I'd have Lendl/Connors and Sampras as the losing semi finalists, but the key here is that both Laver and Nadal could conceivably beat anyone on this surface. Nadal has it in him to beat anyone on hard courts in his prime and could go 5 sets with anyone including prime Fed.
Federer - 10/10
Djokovic - 10/10
Sampras - 9.5/10
Lendl - 9/10
Connors - 9/10
Laver - 8.5/10
Nadal - 8.5/10
Laver - 8/10
Borg - 6/10
Grass Court
Federer would arguably reign supreme, edging out both Pete and Laver/Borg.. would be difficult to differentiate the latter two, I reckon Fed would find it harder to beat the cerebral Laver/Borg than the machine-like Pistol Pete but on a faster surface, it would almost always go tie break and it would be so hard to break Pete's ridonkulous serve.
I think Nadal would again be very competitive against everyone, might struggle v Pete on a fast surface but he'd give anyone a game. Connors is pretty competitive too, but Lendl and Djoko would bring up the rear in this instance.
Federer - 10/10
Sampras - 10/10
Laver - 9.5
Borg - 9.5
Nadal - 8.5/10
Connors - 8.5/10
Djokovic - 7/10
Lendl - 6/10
Summary
- Federer 28/30
- Nadal 27/30
- Laver 25.5/30
- Borg 25/30
- Djokovic 24.5/30
- Lendl 24/30
- Sampras 23.5/30
- Connors 23/30
I'd have Borg and Djoko in the chasing pack, and I'd have Sampras 6th.. although his clay court lack of prowess, puts him behind Lendl who has the better all-court game.
Nadal is a great. There's no two ways about it. The best clay-court player ever. However Roger is just a step above.
You also have to consider that there are more clay court tournaments than grass court ones due to the proximity between RG and Wimbledon. That allows Rafa to get more victories and more titles under his belt than Roger would have on grass.
I've no doubt that Borg would comfortably be the GOAT and Fed and his pals would be chasing his slam record today had he not decided to abruptly retire at 25 and even when he was playing, avoided the Aussie.
Those lists just show how well Murray has done to win what he has. To win anything with 3 giants of the game playing at the same time is some achievement.
What was his record like on Hard Court though?
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/t...29/us-open-final-1980-john-mcenroe-bjorn-borg
For that reason, he could never have been GOAT for me.. even if he had won a few more Australians (which were on grass, so don't enhance his hard court legacy even if he had played in them).
Also the fact he chose to retire at 25, not due to injury should count against him as a flaw.. and as a positive for Federer i.e. that relentless hunger and stamina for success and to reinvent elements of his game.
He was weak on hard courts. But remember the Aussie was on grass until 1987 so it wouldn't be a stretch to say Borg would've picked up a few Aussie titles had he bothered to play there. All that before the age of 25.
I don't think his retirement age is a flaw or a bonus, but lets face it, few players retire at number 1 at age 25 with half their careers still ahead of them where they wouldn't expected to win a few more slams from age 25-30.
I don't dispute that.. but if Aussie was on grass, Fed and Sampras might have added more to their resume too.. so its all a moot point. It would enhance his slam count, but in terms of overall greatness.. wouldn't really cement his status as GOAT, as failing to win a single slam at HC when someone like Nadal has done so against two of the greatest HC players of all time, would mean he is still above Borg.
Just to reiterate Nadal's accomplishments.. in addition to being the greatest clay court player of all time, he has beaten the greatest grass court player and both the greatest hard court players of all time in Slam finals/semi finals. That is one hell of a legacy.
Nadal is the greatest player on any single surface.
Federer is the greatest player.
If the fate of the world depended on a single match of tennis on a surface of my choice with a player of my choice at the peak of his power, I'd pick Nadal on clay against any Alien.
If it depended on a year of tennis on all surfaces, I'd pick peak Federer.
Federer is the greatest player.
If the fate of the world depended on a single match of tennis on a surface of my choice with a player of my choice at the peak of his power, I'd pick Nadal on clay against any Alien.
If it depended on a year of tennis on all surfaces, I'd pick peak Federer.
Federer himself bagelled Nadal on clay so it's a bit of a moot point about the 2008 FO. It was one off match and Federer regularly destroyed Nadal indoors where it's his weakest surface.
What Federer has over Nadal is his dominance on tour. He might not have the French but Nadal is far behind in terms of #1 and generally dominating the tour.
Well, he does have the french and a shitload of finals, enough to declare him one of the greatest clay courters as well.
For me it is slams which are more important, as that is when the players go for it 100% guaranteed.
When it matters, Nadal has more than held his own versus Federer on hard courts. He's held his own against Djokovic/Murray too so it isn't a fluke, he can play on any surface when fully fit.
I don't disagree with the last point, like I have said I have Federer down as my number one too but Nadal is also right up there.
I meant Sampras, sorry.
To me Nadal is the greatest clay courter of all time. He surpassed Borg on that account. In terms of GOAT and his stature is a bit tough. If we take Laver, Borg, Federer, Sampras, even Djokovic in mind - they all dominated the tour at some point, while Nadal didn't, barring 6 months.
All in all Sampras and Nadal are right up there if you want to compare them, but both have their pro's and cons. Nadal has the 4 slams, but lack of Tour finals title and the weeks #1 is a big blemish on his resume as well IMO.
Slams, total tournaments won, period of time they spent at #1 should all be considered imo.
In the end, it all boils down to "Who do you enjoy watching most" since all era comparisons are mute anyway. And there's just nothing better in sport than watching a wild Federer in full flight.
Agreed. Although Nadal and Djokovic aren't far behind in that regard.
Tournament wins
Grand Slams
Consecutive records on Grand Slam tournaments
Grand Slams
Consecutive records on Grand Slam tournaments
Even if Nadal ends up with more slams than Federer I will still give it to Federer.
Unless Nadal goes onto dominate other surfaces he will never be considered greater than Federer imo
Unless Nadal goes onto dominate other surfaces he will never be considered greater than Federer imo
Nadal has 5 Slams outside his favorite surface and Sampras 7 and Nadal has a year or two yet left so it's not a big gap. It's also far tougher being World Number 1 when you're battling peak Fed, peak Murray, peak Djoko and injuries.
Nadal is right up there with Slams and total titles won. As far as the #1 ranking goes, I'm not sure it really matters. Murray is Number 1 and he's not reached one final this year as the "best in the world". Nadal has had periods at 1 but he's often missed huge chunks of seasons with injury and hence spent lesser time there than he might have otherwise. Besides, I find the ranking system pretty flawed with it's defending your points formula.
People talk like Nadal is average to okay on other surfaces which simply isn't true. He's won 5 Slams and lost 5-6 other non clay Slam finals so he's definitely pretty damn good even on the hard courts, fitness permitting. There was some crazy stat that he'd played less than 15 career matches on grass before he reached the 07 final which just shows how good he has been at adapting to surfaces he was never supposed to master at all.
So if Nadal wins 4-5 more Slams (would mean atleast 2 non clay) and finishes above Federer he'd still not be the GOAT? A positive H2H plus more Slams would Nadal top of the pack for sure. I don't see him ever overtaking Fed but if he does, he'll definitely be GOAT. He'd have also done it without ever having the luxury of his greatest rival being Roddick and Hewitt and having played Fed, Djoko and Murray his entire career.
He's actually not. Federer has 3 more slams and 18 more career titles (91 v 73). Connors has 109.
As far as the #1 ranking goes, it speaks to protracted dominance at the top of tennis. Federer has 302 weeks at #1, 237 of which were consecutive (both records). For reference, Nadal has 141. You can say that may be because he was injured at times, but history doesn't care, it merely looks at the raw number.