He's likely to win this, because three players aged 30, 30, and 31 were not physically up to it.
And at 35 he is.
And at 35 he is.
Greatest mens tennis player of all time
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
Forget the greatest tennis player, he's surely got a case for greatest ever sportsman. To be the world's best player at 35 is remarkable. Guy just obliterated Raonic who is no mug
Would'nt go that far, there were other sportsman too at 35 or even more still the world's best in their respective sports, but fedrer is surely in that elite list.
But it kind of feels that as time goes by, sportsmen can push themselves even closer to their physical limit. As a result, the physical gap between a 27 year old and a 35 year old now may be much greater than 20 or 30 years ago. Of course the flip side is perhaps a 35 year old now is able to stay in much better shape.
The way I'm starting to see it, particularly in terms of the main 3.
Overall package: Federer
Best season: Djokovic (2011)
Best player at their peak: Nadal
The main thing I think Federer has over the other is his serve. An ability to get free points so regularly makes a massive difference and that combined with his skillset is why I think we're seeing him play so well this late into his career.
All greats and I think you can split it up in many ways, by surface, season, individual performances etc. and in truth I don't think there's a great deal between them depending how you look at things.
Overall package: Federer
Best season: Djokovic (2011)
Best player at their peak: Nadal
The main thing I think Federer has over the other is his serve. An ability to get free points so regularly makes a massive difference and that combined with his skillset is why I think we're seeing him play so well this late into his career.
All greats and I think you can split it up in many ways, by surface, season, individual performances etc. and in truth I don't think there's a great deal between them depending how you look at things.
I'm probably very ignorant there as I kind of only follow football, tennis, cricket and a little bit of boxing, care to give some examples?
Personally feel Djokovic would win in a match up with all at their peaks. He had a staggering will to win and consistently played unbelievable shots on massive points. Though obviously Nadal beats anyone on clay.
You all just cursing him for Christ sake.
One of them won a slam last month.
Two of the others have been hampered by injuries and loss of form. It wasn't all rosey for Fed when he turned 30. Let's not rule out Djokovic or Murray. Tennis is changing. It used to be a young mans game. But now it seems the older you are the better you get.
I'm not doing but I think it's fair to say age is a serious factor in their failed campaigns.
I'd be most surprised if either of them are competing for grand slams in five years.
It's not age being the main factor. Djokovic was piss poor just after winning the French. Murray has been piss poor after becoming world number 1. Motivation and both have had their injuries.
Let's not forget Federer took about 7 months off, which did him good. If he played through November last year, I doubt he'd have won the Aussie open. Nadal has had various breaks in his career and come back stronger. Both Murray and Djokovic have been playing non stop for 10 years and maybe a few months off wouldn't be a bad idea.
Well we need to see about the 5 year statements as nobody is coming through to stop these guys currently.
Definitely what needs to happen.
He is by far the best tennis player ever, no one comes close to him. The way he played / plays is pure genius. One of the greatest sportsmen ever and showing his class with 35 just proves his unique talent. Being a wonderful human being on top is almost too much to accept
I'm inclined to agree with this.
Who is the oldest player to win a grand slam?
Even as a Federer fan i'm quite surprised he won a slam at this age, everyone wrote him off. Physically and mentally he's up there with the best sportsmen of all time.
Even as a Federer fan i'm quite surprised he won a slam at this age, everyone wrote him off. Physically and mentally he's up there with the best sportsmen of all time.
Ken Rosewall with 37 something years winning Aussie Open.
Then it's Fed this year with Wimbledon and Australian Open, then Andres Gimeno with 34 years winning French Open.
Then it's Fed this year with Wimbledon and Australian Open, then Andres Gimeno with 34 years winning French Open.
Not yet
Just my way of jinx. 
I kid, I kid.
I'd be astounded if he does not win it now. Greatest shock in a while.
I kid, I kid.
I'd be astounded if he does not win it now. Greatest shock in a while.
Indeed. Up there with the Woods', Pele's, Ali's, Jordan's, etc. of this World.
By now Woods shouldn't be in this conversation anymore, unless we only judge by Money made.
Or by including sports that are not really sports.
Gotta remember Bradman when making a Pantheon.
It's an impossible comparison considering all the changes to the game and how conditioned athletes are today. In his day, McEnroe was a genius with his deft tough - few ever had it but raquets were far different then, he was playing with a wood Dunlop & Connors with a metal racket. Borg was already burning out when McEnroe dethroned him. Becker was pretty special in his day and when in a certain rhythm nearly impossible to beat as was Agassi who had impeccable timing on his strokes standing closer on serves than any player I've ever seen.
Still, I'd look at players like Sampras & Federer as being able to play in just about any era and win consistently
Still, I'd look at players like Sampras & Federer as being able to play in just about any era and win consistently
The thing with Bradman is that there's simply too few countries that give a toss about cricket, which reduces the talent pool and media attention. That's the reason Jahangir Khan is never mentioned in these discussions despite winning an unreal 555 professional squash matches in a row.
Then again we could say the same thing about Jordan I guess (to a lesser degree) and I've never quite understood cricket or its numbers so what do I know...
Last edited:
But it's not about how few countries play a perticular sport, its about a person or a player taking his or her game to legendary level. It's not the players fault that some countries prefer other sports and do not compete on high level.
Where did I say otherwise? I just offered an explanation why Bradman et al. are often ommited when people talk about the gods of sport.
And of course Tendulkar with his genius.
The test playing nations consist of over 2 billion people.
Last edited:
8th Wimbledon final. Absolute legend.
10th or 11th I think
Pretty sure its 10th?
Won 7, lost 3 (Nadal + Djoko*2). So this would be the 11th.
Yeah my brain freezed for a moment and forgot the '14 loss
Its his 11th Wimbledon final.
Genius
No one really gives a toss about cricket or rugby outside of the British Commonwealth though. I think that's what he meant.
I think this is one the easier and most straightforward GOAT discussions in any sport.
Agreed.
Federer is the most overrated legend in the tennis world.
Yeah Nadal is the greatest player on grass.