The greatest tennis player of all time

amolbhatia50k

Sneaky bum time - Vaccination status: dozed off
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
98,382
Location
india
Who do you think it is?

I was just reading up about the Borg-Mcenroe rivalry and was surprised to see that Mcenroe led the grandslam head to head record 3-1, much like Nadal's lead over Federer. Also, looking at Federer-Nadals head-to-head (despite having follow their rivalry from it's start) if you take away Nadal's clay domination, in grandslam's Federer actually leads in other grandslams 2-1. Puts everything into perpective for me a little.

Discuss.
 
How is it 2-1 you nut, Nadal beat Rog in the 2008 Wimbledon and 2009 Oz Open
 
Federer is the greatest ever, Nadal is the greatest today, depending on knee conditions. Either player is worthy to stand on the same court as anyone from history.
 
You can't say, it's not a fair comparison.

Rog is one of the best ever. Nadal can be.
 
Heh, when Federer wins a Grand Slam mixed doubles at the age of 46, I'll take notice.
 
Alex said:
How is it 2-1 you nut, Nadal beat Rog in the 2008 Wimbledon and 2009 Oz Open
Click to expand...
That's what i'm wondering. Wiki lied! It's probably not yet updated. Why the aggression, 'nut'?
 
Melbourne Red said:
Heh, when Federer wins a Grand Slam mixed doubles at the age of 46, I'll take notice.
Click to expand...
Yes. I'm sure he's dying to trade his French open title for the much coveted mixed doubles grandslam title.

Seriously guys, men only.
That didn't sound right. :(
 
amolbhatia100 said:
Yes. I'm sure he's dying to trade his French open title for the much coveted mixed doubles grandslam title.

Seriously guys, men only.
That didn't sound right. :(
Click to expand...

Hehehe

Martina won 7 of the feckers.

I might report this thread for sexism.
 
Melbourne Red said:
Hehehe

Martina won 7 of the feckers.

I might report this thread for sexism.
Click to expand...

Martina was like Hulk Hogan. She kept going on till people stopped caring.

(Regrets the awful awful comparison but decides to 'submit reply' anyway)
 


This Bird is.
 
McEnroe was a fantastic player to watch with great finesse. Laver had the combination of touch, power and toughness that marks him out for me.
 
Bjorn Borg, the seventies was filled with a stupid amount of incredible players and he was probably the best of them all.
 
Count Duckula said:
Federer lacks the bottle to actually compete against anyone who gives him a game. He'd have got creamed in the seventies.
Click to expand...

You don't win that much without bottle. Nadal may have the better of him but you can't accuse him of that.

Just look at the French and how he came back against Haas and Del Potro, especially Haas when he played that high risk forehand at 2 sets and a break point down. That's bottle.
 
Skelter said:
You don't win that much without bottle. Nadal may have the better of him but you can't accuse him of that.

Just look at the French and how he came back against Haas and Del Potro, especially Haas when he played that high risk forehand at 2 sets and a break point down. That's bottle.
Click to expand...

You do win that much when everyone else competing is shit. Federer's dominating period coincided with the lowest level of talent on the men's tour in decades. As soon as some genuinly talented rivals have turned up (Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro) he's been hanging on by a thread. The only reason he's still number two is because Nadal is winning everything instead, so no one else can get the Grand Slams needed to displace him.
 
Count Duckula said:
Federer lacks the bottle to actually compete against anyone who gives him a game. He'd have got creamed in the seventies.
Click to expand...


Borg apart the 70s were shit. That's why he dominated so much, he was so much fitter than everyone else.
 
peterstorey said:
McEnroe was a fantastic player to watch with great finesse. Laver had the combination of touch, power and toughness that marks him out for me.
Click to expand...

We had this discussion recently in the French Open Thread and it is very difficult but for me having seen all the modern greats live it's Laver

You have to look at how good they are on the different surfaces and Laver could play on a pebble fking beach if he had to

One very difficult thing in tennis is that the equipment has fundamentally changed the sport in respect to different generations but you could see Laver given a graphite axe would be just as dominant as Sampras on grass but also on the clay as well

No doubt Federer is up there too but

1 Laver
2 Borg / McEnroe
4 Sampras
5 Fed

Had Samps been able to get anything on clay he'd have been near the top but on clay frankly he was just another good player
 
Federer.

Federer has won the most grand slams, and he's still going strong. AND he's won all the grand slams. I would love to say Lever, Borg or MacEnroe, but Federer at his best is so much better than those players were. The game has moved on so much since then. I would even put Nadal second and Sampras third.
 
Can't fault Borg's record - according to wiki he had a 82.46% win percentage. I think a case can be made for Borg, McEnroe and Sampras(I don't know much about Laver, to be fair). That said, I doubt the older players would've been as successful in the modern age(and modern players, visa versa), mainly because players thesedays are so much bigger and stronger, but a lot of that has to do with the bigger racquets, whereas the older players probably relied more heavily on skill and finesse. Basically, you can't really compare eras - and to pick a best player of all time is virtually futile.
 
Count Duckula said:
You do win that much when everyone else competing is shit. Federer's dominating period coincided with the lowest level of talent on the men's tour in decades. As soon as some genuinly talented rivals have turned up (Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro) he's been hanging on by a thread. The only reason he's still number two is because Nadal is winning everything instead, so no one else can get the Grand Slams needed to displace him.
Click to expand...

Where do you get this bullshit?

In the last year or so (2008-09) Federer has featured in five finals, only missing out on one Australian Open, which Nadal and Murray missed out on as well. During this last year and a half he has won two grand slams - that is two more than Murray and Del Potro, and one more than Djokovic. Nor is it true that Nadal is "winning everything". Over the same period of time he has reached four finals, and won three of them. One more than Federer and one final less reached.

He has beaten Murray and Del Potro in Grand Slams over the last year as well.

You seem to think that since Federer no longer wins everything, he is "hanging by a thread". Truth is, that even getting to a final of a Grand Slam is extremely difficult (see Nadal in this years RG), and no one, not even Federer will be able to win everything - especially when he is propably already had the the peak of his career.

To be the best you are not required to win everything all the time, none of the others did that either. Federer has won a lot, and he still keeps on winning.

So if winning two (will soon be three) Grand Slams every year or so is "hanging on by a thread" then I`m sure all of Djokovic, Murray and Del Potro would give their left arm to get a piece of that thread.
 
Björn Borg


The crazy thing is he retired from the sport when he was only 26! He and Nadal are the only ones to have won both Wimbledon and the French Open on the same year.... But Borg did it for three consecutive years.

Too bad ladies and partying got to his head. These days he owns a successful underwear brand :D
 
CantonasWife said:
Björn Borg


The crazy thing is he retired from the sport when he was only 26! He and Nadal are the only ones to have won both Wimbledon and the French Open on the same year.... But Borg did it for three consecutive years.

Too bad ladies and partying got to his head. These days he owns a successful underwear brand :D
Click to expand...

Not really.

He sold the rights to that merchandise years ago I`ve heard.
 
Count, he's just won Madrid (beating Nadal and Del Potro) and the French (beating Del Potro again) and is now favourite for Wimbledon again! Hardly clinging on is he.

I thought you liked the guy anyway.
 
CantonasWife;6450072 The crazy thing is he retired from the sport when he was only 26![/QUOTE said:
That's another reason why he can't be the greatest. And he lost in 24 finals.
Click to expand...
 
Rams said:
That's another reason why he can't be the greatest. And he lost in 24 finals.
Click to expand...

Why not? Cantona retired at the age of 30, it's not about how long you have played, it's the way you present yourself during that time. I think the fact he won that much during a short period of time tells he was a great player... he won 90 % of the single matches he played.
 
For me, it's Sampras. Until Roger came along, there was no one as dominant as him.

My favorite is McEnroe, though. Love that guy. I'm surprised that he gets so much love on here, as Connors won more Slams than him.
 
Count Duckula said:
You realise McEnroe won almost as much as Borg, as did Conners. The seventies were fantastic.
Click to expand...


McEnroe peaked in the 80s. Connors was shit on clay and only won Wimbledon when facing a has been or a McEnroe who was well below par.
He needed his home crowd to show his best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.