The greatest tennis player of all time

Some of his tennis yesterday against Murray was out of this world. He's actually improving on being the best.

Frightening.
 
It seems to me like tennis is as strong now as it's ever been. I mean the standard at the top is seriously impressive. I thought for 2 sets the Murray Federer match was fantastic. Of course Murray fell away, his serve buggered off and Federer was just making every shot. The way he was taking things on the rise was unreal....
 
So by adding it to this thread, are you stating that Andy Murray should be in thee discussions?

I'm a big fan, but even I see doubt in that.
 
I don't think there could ever have been a stronger top 5 than we have now. Something people should consider when criticising Murray.
 
Nearco said:
I don't think there could ever have been a stronger top 5 than we have now. Something people should consider when criticising Murray.
Click to expand...

Agreed, if Tim Henman had these lads in his prime, he wouldn't even be existant.
 
Count Duckula said:
I dunno, Henman was good on grass in his prime. I'd fancy him to reach the quarters still, maybe even the semis with a flukey win. On any other surface he'd probably be crushed, though.
Click to expand...

Yeh, probably

Q-Final at best, barring a miracle win

As he'd at best be a top 8 seed at Wimbledon, so would be facing a Murray, Nadal, Federer or Djokovic in the Q-Final
 
Best in my opinion is Federer followed by Laver and Sampras. Laver won the GS twice but 3 of the 4 surfaces were grass then and I don't think there was anywhere near the depth of players as there are now. Sampras never got close to winning the French.
Best woman - Steffi Graf, followed by Navratilova.
 
Over the last 50 years, based on singles only :

Federer
Laver
Borg
Sampras
McEnroe

Pancho Gonzales is hard to rate accurately but should probably be in there

Graf
Navratilova
Court

McEnroe and Navratilova would be higher if you include doubles.
 
McEnroe for me.

Borg was too "civilized" for my liking.
 
Greatest tennis player of all time is Pete Samparas, as a fan of Becker I hated him to the core but none can deny his genius...Also proved his mettle against Federrer who was playing at his peak some time back, Federer would've been owned by Sampras and his contemporaries had he started his career a decade back.
 
Jopub said:
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
Click to expand...

Laver completed the grand slam when all tournaments were played on grass.
As for Borg/McEnroe they cannot be compared with Federerr or Nadal, wooden and graphite rackets - touch and power game it sums up all..

Also off late the speed on the surfaces has been reduced considerably compared in the 80's and 90's. The coaching system has gone too mechanical we dont have a Serve and Volleyers or baseliners as such players that can reveal in both but cannot excel in one style.

I would say 80-97 was the golden era of tennis especially after the wooden to graphite transition happenned, from 84 until the retirement of Sampras we had players excelling in the power game as well as skill.
 
Nearco said:
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.
Click to expand...

Connors was the only proper all court player the game has ever seen, even for a man of his size he was able match all stronger players from the baseline. Connors won five US open titles when the tournament was played across four different surfaces including clay along with two wimbledons.

Agassi albiet winning on four surfaces stinks in comparison, winning the four majors sporadically and dragging on like a broken tooth even when he was past and sneaking to wins shouldnt mean much overall. Agassi in his pomp was a harder nut than Connors to crack though as even powerful server and volleyers like Sampras, Becker, Edberg and Ivanisevic all hit the mud against against him even on faster surfaces whist Connors was owned easily by McEnroe and Borg

If its an all court player I would rank Connors and Lendl as the greatest ever. Lendl had he won the french would've easily been regarded as one of five best players of all time.
 
On grass Pistol Pete in his prime would have dominated anyone. It's a tough call though as do you class it as who has been the best for the longest period or who when at the height of their powers had the skill to beat anyone. It's a bit like the Maradonna, Pele, Pele had the better career whereas Maradonna had the superior skill.
 
Rod Laver: This guy could have played in any era and have been successful.. in my opinion best of all time. Maradona of Tennis without the scandal.




Roger Federer: The amount he's won and the grace with which he's done it, no one can fault but his inabilty to beat a peak-form Nadal on a regular basis puts a dampener on his claim to be GOAT in my opinion... their match-ups just weren't very even with Nadal catching up and beating him even on his favoured surfaces. What I will say is that the Fed who first won Wimbledon and his initial years as the main man in tennis, he was sublime.. forget his technical brilliance, his accuracy, consistency of shot-making and just unreal movement of speed was amazing and that Federer would have dealt with Nadal alot easier.

Bjorn Borg: The perfect template for the modern player, athletically fit and ability to hit just as hard from both sides. Similar to Fed in that he had a jinx on the US open and his refusal to enter the Australian undoubtedly hurt his chances of winning more grand slams.

Beating an Old Laver in this match, but Laver just has so much natural genius to his game.


These three could have played in any Era and have been successful.
 
Federer, Sampras, Borg, Agassi & Connors for me as been the most gifted of my generation (Would have Nadal & Hewitt up there as well in sixth / Seventh)

McEnroe, Becker, Lendl as been less gifted but work rate second to none....
 
1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Laver
4. Borg
5. Connors/McEnroe/Rosewall

- Fed is easily the best. Most Slams titles with Sampras trailing just behind. Federer will add more, which will make him unequivocally the best.
- Laver is right up there and his two slams and career singles titles won't ever be equaled.
- Borg - 6 French Opens and 5 Wimbledons - No US or Aussies though. Otherwise he'd be much higher.

-Connors and Johnny Mac are tied for 5th. One had far more singles titles while the other had loads more slams if you include all his doubles titles with Peter Fleming. Rosewall had loads of slams but many were before the Open Era.

For me, Nadal is still in the category just below the all time greats along with the likes of Becker, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Budge etc.
 
I wonder how Agassi would have been if he had stayed more focused to his tennis in his earlier years, his book makes it seem that a lot of time she was his own worst enemy.
 
Raoul said:
2. Sampras

4. Borg



- Borg - 6 French Opens and 5 Wimbledons - No US or Aussies though. Otherwise he'd be much higher.
Click to expand...

This is bullshit. First off the Aussie Open wasn't that relevent in the 70s and at least Borg contended at Flushing, he reached a few finals. The fact that Sampras was barely average on clay takes him out of the top half dozen of all time for me.
 
I think Federer and Borg are about on the same level. Both are fantastic players and both are classy on the court as well. However, Federer might edge it because the level of the game now is so much higher than the level of the game back then.
 
Federer.. for the same reason Sampras mentioned. No one can stay that consistent over more than 5 years. He keeps reaching the finals of all GS for the past ..what 5 years bar a couple of times where he lost on the semis .. and to still do that at the age of 28 and 29 with really good and tough young opponents coming through is unprecedented ..oh and on all surfaces!!!!!!!!

"[In the modern game], you're a clay court specialist, a grass court specialist or a hard court specialist ... or you're Roger Federer."

Jimmy Connors
 
A bump should be in order.


Federer now cementing his place as the all time best?

If not, then how many more Grand Slams will he have to win?
 
No debate

Its Federer. I mean the guy is stupidly close to perfection. Didn't even break a sweat against Murray until the latter stages of the 3rd set tie break.

He'll go past 20 grand slams i reckon.
 
Nearco said:
This is bullshit. First off the Aussie Open wasn't that relevent in the 70s and at least Borg contended at Flushing, he reached a few finals. The fact that Sampras was barely average on clay takes him out of the top half dozen of all time for me.
Click to expand...

You've got it all wrong. The Aussie was part of the slam, albeit the least celebrated off the four. Borg decided to be a diva by boycotting the Aussie because he claimed he didn't have time to adequately prepare for it. He may or may not have won there, but the point is he didn't even try, which is the only blemish on an otherwise stellar career. He often gets more credit than he should because he decided to walk away at the top, where in actuality he should be judged on what he accomplished, not what could have or didn't.
 
Ruben said:
A bump should be in order.


Federer now cementing his place as the all time best?

If not, then how many more Grand Slams will he have to win?
Click to expand...

He did it last year when he passed Sampras in slams and reclaimed the number one ranking, which at this stage only injury could dislodge him from.
 
Federer cemented his place as the number 1 when he won the French for me.

1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Borg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.