Greatest mens tennis player of all time

[Avatar]

Because ones a team sport and the other ones individual? Most reasonable people understand that in a team sport, there is only so much influence an individual can have. So punishing Maradona for the collective failures of an organisation is just stupid.

Not to say it doesn't happen. Look at the LeBron James Vs Michael Jordan debate.

Thus the question still remains: why is Maradona considered the greatest, or one of the two or three greatest, footballers of all time? Clearly, it's not the stats; so again why do we "feel" that he is so?

And btw, Nadal's H2H is better against Roger because they met way more on clay than any other surface in the early period. That's no excuse for Federer and it shouldn't take anything from Rafa, but when this is a result of Federer repeatedly making it to the finals on clay , while Nadal failing to reach finals as frequently as Federer on hard and grass, then it clearly shows that at least the calculation needs to be more nuanced than simply counting the H2H matches.

This is the other problem I have with the simplistic model of counting GS, or world cups in football, to determine GOATs. They do not show the full picture. Why do ATP finals, where you compete against the top 8 players of the year, not count in a GOAT debate? At least give it a lesser weight. Roger has 6 of these, Nadal has 0! What about Masters 1000 or 500? The model needs to be way more rigorous.

 

[Zen]

Thus the question still remains: why is Maradona considered the greatest, or one of the two or three greatest, footballers of all time? Clearly, it's not the stats; so again why do we "feel" that he is so?

And btw, Nadal's H2H is better against Roger because they met way more on clay than any other surface in the early period. That's no excuse for Federer and it shouldn't take anything from Rafa, but when this is a result of Federer repeatedly making it to the finals on clay , while Nadal failing to reach finals as frequently as Federer on hard and grass, then it clearly shows that at least the calculation needs to be more nuanced than simply counting the H2H matches.

This is the other problem I have with the simplistic model of counting GS, or world cups in football, to determine GOATs. They do not show the full picture. Why do ATP finals, where you compete against the top 8 players of the year, not count in a GOAT debate? At least give it a lesser weight. Roger has 6 of these, Nadal has 0! What about Masters 1000 or 500? The model needs to be way more rigorous.

Who cares about Nadal?.... Djokovic is the one who's clearly usurped him.

 

[iammemphis]

Who cares about Nadal?.... Djokovic is the one who's clearly usurped him.

Federer at his best years ago beats peak Djokovic in my opinion. There wasn't one weakness in his game and his tennis was more aesthetically pleasing on the eye than Djokovic ever has been.

 

[Skills]

Federer at his best years ago beats peak Djokovic in my opinion. There wasn't one weakness in his game and his tennis was more aesthetically pleasing on the eye than Djokovic ever has been.

Yes there was. His backhand was a weakness, and that was exploited by both Nadal and Djokovic.

Djokovic is the one who doesn't have a weakness in his game - his base level at all parts of the game is very good, and he's got the greatest backhand ever.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Having followed tennis for about 30 years now, I'd say its Federer. More slams than any other player, more consecutive weeks at number one, and one of the very few who has won all four slams. Not with standing the actual grand slams that Budge and Laver won, they weren't nearly as consistent as Federer. Connors has won more singles titles but only half the slams as Fed. Sampras has one more Wimbledon (7) but never managed the French.

For me the top five would be:

1. Federer
2. Borg
3. Sampras
4. Laver
5. Nadal

Who are your top five of all time and why ?

Love how this list is now

1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Nadal
4. Laver
5. Borg

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

No one had a peak like RFed

Over four years at no.1, five back to back Wimbledon's and US Opens.

 

[Camy89]

I don’t like the guy but I’d have to say Djokovic is the greatest of all time. Nadal very close behind.

Federer’s style of play, however, is by far the best.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Thus the question still remains: why is Maradona considered the greatest, or one of the two or three greatest, footballers of all time? Clearly, it's not the stats; so again why do we "feel" that he is so?

And btw, Nadal's H2H is better against Roger because they met way more on clay than any other surface in the early period. That's no excuse for Federer and it shouldn't take anything from Rafa, but when this is a result of Federer repeatedly making it to the finals on clay , while Nadal failing to reach finals as frequently as Federer on hard and grass, then it clearly shows that at least the calculation needs to be more nuanced than simply counting the H2H matches.

This is the other problem I have with the simplistic model of counting GS, or world cups in football, to determine GOATs. They do not show the full picture. Why do ATP finals, where you compete against the top 8 players of the year, not count in a GOAT debate? At least give it a lesser weight. Roger has 6 of these, Nadal has 0! What about Masters 1000 or 500? The model needs to be way more rigorous.

This!

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

The best tennis player of all time is Djokovic.

The greatest tennis player of all time is Federer.

A distinction.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

All this illustrates is that Rafa is far more effective at winning slams. After all, you don't get a trophy for making the semis.

Shows he also exits slams earlier.

 

[Kazi]

The best tennis player of all time is Djokovic.

The greatest tennis player of all time is Federer.

A distinction.

Federer gets more girls?? Not sure how that’s relevant…

 

[Skills]

Shows he also exits slams earlier.

Not really. Nadal's won 88% of the GS matches he's played compared to Federer's 86%.

Rafa's just missed quite a few slams over the years.

 

[2mufc0]

What a player. Enjoy the retirement.

 

[saivet]

This is the other problem I have with the simplistic model of counting GS, or world cups in football, to determine GOATs. They do not show the full picture. Why do ATP finals, where you compete against the top 8 players of the year, not count in a GOAT debate? At least give it a lesser weight. Roger has 6 of these, Nadal has 0! What about Masters 1000 or 500? The model needs to be way more rigorous.

Pretty sure he is behind Nadal and Djokovic in terms of 'big titles' won. Total of ATP Finals, Grand Slams, Masters 1000 and Olympics singles. While he wad a great and the most popular of the trio I think he's clearly in third spot.

The title counts and negative head to heads make it difficult to put Federer ahead of Djokovic or Nadal.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Not really. Nadal's won 88% of the GS matches he's played compared to Federer's 86%.

Rafa's just missed quite a few slams over the years.

He made less semi finals? So he didn't get as deep?

 

[Andrade]

It's not art, it's a sport. There's actual winners and losers. And Rodger was often the loser when up against the other 2 candidates from his era.

Winning is very important. But how you win is also important. That's the difference between Brazil 1970 and West Germany 1974. Many sports, when played with great skill become artistic.

 

[Andrade]

Pretty sure he is behind Nadal and Djokovic in terms of 'big titles' won. Total of ATP Finals, Grand Slams, Masters 1000 and Olympics singles. While he wad a great and the most popular of the trio I think he's clearly in third spot.

The title counts and negative head to heads make it difficult to put Federer ahead of Djokovic or Nadal.

I'd put him ahead of both of them, it's not difficult for me at all. The Nadal H2H contains a lot of clay matches IIRC and with Novak, Fed was ahead for a long time until he got older and Novak caught and passed him.

BTW, Fed has the most ATP finals and the most total titles at the moment.

 

[saivet]

I'd put him ahead of both of them, it's not difficult for me at all. The Nadal H2H contains a lot of clay matches IIRC and with Novak, Fed was ahead for a long time until he got older and Novak caught and passed him.

BTW, Fed has the most ATP finals and the most total titles at the moment.

Nadal has dominated him on clay and it's more even everywhere else, not sure that context favours Federer.

Personally think the total titles is a bit of a red herring as I wouldn't consider ATP500 or ATP250 events particularly important in a 'greatest' player debate.

Even though you're right about the Djokovic head to head (which I think favours Djokovic even in that context) he has more Masters 1000 titles and has won every Masters 1000 title and grand slam at least twice which is isn't praised enough in my opinion. He also has the no.1 record over Federer now too.

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

To be number 1 in the men's game for 237 consecutive weeks (basically 4 years and a half) is something that may well never be matched or exceeded again. For that reason, I have to say Federer is the GOAT. It's mostly down to him if my interest in professional tennis grew many years ago.

 

[wr8_utd]

To be number 1 in the men's game for 237 consecutive weeks (basically 4 years and a half) is something that may well never be matched or exceeded again. For that reason, I have to say Federer is the GOAT. It's mostly down to him if my interest in professional tennis grew many years ago.

Unfortunately the field has been too competitive since Novak and Nadal came on the scene for them to be #1 for 237 weeks in a row. Would have helped if either got to face Roddick, Hewitt and co. for four or so years

Nadal has dominated him on clay and it's more even everywhere else, not sure that context favours Federer.

Personally think the total titles is a bit of a red herring as I wouldn't consider ATP500 or ATP250 events particularly important in a 'greatest' player debate.

Even though you're right about the Djokovic head to head (which I think favours Djokovic even in that context) he has more Masters 1000 titles and has won every Masters 1000 title and grand slam at least twice which is isn't praised enough in my opinion. He also has the no.1 record over Federer now too.

Federer is quite clearly below the two of them and Novak has beaten Federer to pretty much everything and is pretty nailed on to be GOAT. He's already a bigger candidate than Federer tbh.

 

[Andrade]

Nadal has dominated him on clay and it's more even everywhere else, not sure that context favours Federer.

It's not, Federer leads 3-1 on grass. If they'd played 16 times on grass like they have on clay then the overall record would likely be more even.

Personally think the total titles is a bit of a red herring as I wouldn't consider ATP500 or ATP250 events particularly important in a 'greatest' player debate.

That's your consideration but there's no objective manual on what should and shouldn't be considered.

Even though you're right about the Djokovic head to head (which I think favours Djokovic even in that context) he has more Masters 1000 titles and has won every Masters 1000 title and grand slam at least twice which is isn't praised enough in my opinion. He also has the no.1 record over Federer now too.

Why does it favour Novak even more? He's six years younger which is a big discrepancy. Novak has the overall number 1 record but Fed still holds the consecutive weeks at number 1 record.

You can't really do it on who's won what or records because all of the big 3 have numerous records and achievements, and any difference between them in any specific area is minimal.

 

[Andrade]

Unfortunately the field has been too competitive since Novak and Nadal came on the scene for them to be #1 for 237 weeks in a row. Would have helped if either got to face Roddick, Hewitt and co. for four or so years

Just not true

Federer is quite clearly below the two of them and Novak has beaten Federer to pretty much everything and is pretty nailed on to be GOAT. He's already a bigger candidate than Federer tbh.

He's not. Fair enough if you think that but it will always be a debate.

 

[wr8_utd]

It's not, Federer leads 3-1 on grass. If they'd played 16 times on grass like they have on clay then the overall record would likely be more even.

Why does it favour Novak even more? He's six years younger which is a big discrepancy. Novak has the overall number 1 record but Fed still holds the consecutive weeks at number 1 record.

You can't really do it on who's won what or records because all of the big 3 have numerous records and achievements, and any difference between them in any specific area is minimal.

Novak has the overall #1 record despite entering a field which included Rafa and Federer and on a lesser note, Murray. He's not really had the luxury of dominating a field full of Roddicks and Hewitts. The parameters just keep changing when it comes to Federer fans tbh. Initially the number of Slams was what mattered and once these guys started closing in on that, things like weeks at #1 got huge importance. Now that Novak has overtaken that also, it becomes "continuous" weeks at number one? The goatposts just keep changing when it comes to Federer's claims to GOATness.

 

[Charlie Foley]

It’s not the feckin Queen anyway

 

[wr8_utd]

He's not. Fair enough if you think that but it will always be a debate.

If being the greatest was decided by who has the prettiest looking shots, I'm 100% with you and it's Federer.

 

[simonhch]

For ages it didn’t look like anyone would surpass Federer, but they have. RF racked up something like 9 slams before Rafa and Novak came onto the scene. And once they did, they both accumulated slams at a faster rate than he did. If he’d played his whole career with at least one of them competing at the same time, as they both have, he’d have not reached 20. Might have been somewhere closer to Sampras territory of 14-15ish.

Regardless of all of that, a truly wonderful player, who was probably the most aesthetically pleasing to watch of the big three. He’ll likely go down as the third best of all time as I expect Novak and Rafa to end on 24 or 25 slams each. A healthy gap to Roger, despite his early career advantage.

 

[Andrade]

Novak has the overall #1 record despite entering a field which included Rafa and Federer and on a lesser note, Murray. He's not really had the luxury of dominating a field full of Roddicks and Hewitts. The parameters just keep changing when it comes to Federer fans tbh. Initially the number of Slams was what mattered and once these guys started closing in on that, things like weeks at #1 got huge importance. Now that Novak has overtaken that also, it becomes "continuous" weeks at number one? The goatposts just keep changing when it comes to Federer's claims to GOATness.

He's the greatest tennis player I've ever seen. When my grandchildren ask me about this era, that's what I'll say. And so will loads of other people.

Who's greater, Lendl or McEnroe? Lendl has more slams and a better H2H, but does that make him a greater player? It's not that simple. Who is remembered more? OK, people remember Mac because of his meltdowns but they also remember him for his skill and verve.

The Borg v Mac match used to be replayed all the time during rain delays before Wimbledon had a roof. What Lendl match ever used to get replayed? Greatness is not just about numbers.

Each of the big three has their legions of fans and fair play to them. If someone thinks Rafa or Novak or Laver or whoever is the GOAT, that's entirely their prerogative. But Federer for me is the greatest.

 

[Andrade]

If being the greatest was decided by who has the prettiest looking shots, I'm 100% with you and it's Federer.

No less worthwhile a metric than the most slams to be quite honest

By that measure, the GOAT men's player is Rafa and the best women's player is Margaret Court. If you bring doubles into it, the GOATS are still Roy Emerson and Martina. I'm sure many would disagree with those four.

 

[Bobski]

I think you have to remember like Sampras before him Federer set the standard for others to chase, redefined what was possible. If Federer never exists do Nadal and Nole push as hard as they do, do they become what they have? Easier to chase than lead.

Federer will probably look back at some of those final losses to Djokovic when he had match points as the missed opportunities, there was never a match up issue with those 2 as with Nadal and his topspin on clay, in the latter parts of their careers Djokovic just played the big points better than Federer in those match ups. That 2019 Wimbledon final when he had match points on his serve and was the better player overall, but still lost, gutting.

 

[Fts 74]

Hes the best as far as I'm concerned.

Poetry in motion when he was at his best, Rafa and Novak true greats also and on GS won they are ahead but there was just something about Federer.

 

[Andrade]

Hes the best as far as I'm concerned.

Poetry in motion when he was at his best, Rafa and Novak true greats also and on GS won they are ahead but there was just something about Federer.

Agreed

 

[Beachryan]

For me, peak Fed on grass and hard could beat peak Novak on either, and peak, hell mediocre Nadal can beat everyone on clay.

Novak and Fed's peaks never aligned, so their head to head record is somewhat meaningless imo.

 

[simonhch]

For me, peak Fed on grass and hard could beat peak Novak on either, and peak, hell mediocre Nadal can beat everyone on clay.

Novak and Fed's peaks never aligned, so their head to head record is somewhat meaningless imo.

Peak Fed and Rafa did align though, and Rafa held the better h2h record, even beating him on grass in the most epic of Wimbledon finals.

It would’ve been crazy to think of Fed going down as anything other than the Goat, at one point in time, never mind being 3rd, but all that truly tells us is how fecking lucky we’ve been to enjoy an era with the three greatest players ever, at the same time. Phenomenal.

At the end of the day, the margins between the three are pretty fine. And there are arguments for each of them. I think it’s pretty clear cut that Rafa and Novak will end up above Fed in all the reckoning but it’s not by much, and I can see why for many Fed is their favourite ever.

 

[Zen]

He's the greatest tennis player I've ever seen. When my grandchildren ask me about this era, that's what I'll say. And so will loads of other people.

Who's greater, Lendl or McEnroe? Lendl has more slams and a better H2H, but does that make him a greater player? It's not that simple. Who is remembered more? OK, people remember Mac because of his meltdowns but they also remember him for his skill and verve.

The Borg v Mac match used to be replayed all the time during rain delays before Wimbledon had a roof. What Lendl match ever used to get replayed? Greatness is not just about numbers.

Each of the big three has their legions of fans and fair play to them. If someone thinks Rafa or Novak or Laver or whoever is the GOAT, that's entirely their prerogative. But Federer for me is the greatest.

Bit of a trivial comparison since it avoids the context.... US-Wimbledon were miles ahead in terms of prestige in McEnroe/Lendl's time, which is why he's seen as the better player than the ones who are similar 'number' level to him like Lendl-Wilander-Edberg-Becker etc. Lendl played 57 Slams in a 15 year compared to McEnroe playing 45... yet is only 1 ahead.

Oddly, no one skips or lowballs the Aussie Open since Federer's been on the scene... before him. players with sub .500 win records were making the final

Federer single handedly made the Aussie Open relevant.

 

[Andrade]

Bit of a trivial comparison since it avoids the context.... US-Wimbledon were miles ahead in terms of prestige in McEnroe/Lendl's time, which is why he's seen as the better player than the ones who are similar 'number' level to him like Lendl-Wilander-Edberg-Becker etc. Lendl played 57 Slams in a 15 year compared to McEnroe playing 45... yet is only 1 ahead.

Oddly, no one skips or lowballs the Aussie Open since Federer's been on the scene... before him. players with sub .500 win records were making the final

Federer single handedly made the Aussie Open relevant.

Not sure that's true. Wimbledon has always been the biggest but I don't recall the US Open having greater prestige than Roland Garros for example. Anyway, Becker won the same number of Wimbledons as Mac and Edberg won one less I think. Lendl also won the US Open 3 times.

 

[Zen]

Roland Garros didn't have the same appeal, because, generally, it was insanely specialist.... therefor stars going deep wasn't a consistent thing, less stars = less prestige generally unless it's a blatant and classic anomaly (say Kruijeck-Washington W96). Another one you can thank Federer for at least starting.... it's now less specialist when everyone is at the worst a moderately decent all-court playe on top of that, so the prestige is heightened.

If they had the Prestige levels they do today and/or less issues with entering them, Connors would 100% be a Career Slam winner, and very likely Grand Slam Winner in 1974(like, blatently nailed on) - and I'd hazard a guess, so would McEnroe, he barely took RG seriously and still casually took Lendl(specialist) to 5 in 1984 in the one he did try in.... whereas Lendl couldn't get over the line at Wimbledon, that he truly wanted, because that'd be his genuine claim to greatness.

Tennis Purists have always loved the French however.

 

[tomaldinho1]

Yes there was. His backhand was a weakness, and that was exploited by both Nadal and Djokovic.

Djokovic is the one who doesn't have a weakness in his game - his base level at all parts of the game is very good, and he's got the greatest backhand ever.

I think this really is the question, peak Federer versus peak Djokovic.

Nadal isn’t in their league for me unless you’re specifically talking about clay, in which case he’s the best.

 

[Andrade]

Roland Garros didn't have the same appeal, because, generally, it was insanely specialist.... therefor stars going deep wasn't a consistent thing, less stars = less prestige generally unless it's a blatant and classic anomaly (say Kruijeck-Washington W96). Another one you can thank Federer for at least starting.... it's now less specialist when everyone is at the worst a moderately decent all-court playe on top of that, so the prestige is heightened.

If they had the Prestige levels they do today and/or less issues with entering them, Connors would 100% be a Career Slam winner, and very likely Grand Slam Winner in 1974(like, blatently nailed on) - and I'd hazard a guess, so would McEnroe, he barely took RG seriously and still casually took Lendl(specialist) to 5 in 1984 in the one he did try in.... whereas Lendl couldn't get over the line at Wimbledon, that he truly wanted, because that'd be his genuine claim to greatness.

Tennis Purists have always loved the French however.

I take your point about the specialist nature of RG but still, Lendl dominated the second half of the 80s to a degree that had never been seen before and wasn't seen again until the big 3. He won almost 100 titles, reached 19 Grand Slam finals (winning 8, and 3 of the 4: only Wimbledon eluded him but he reached the final twice) and had dominant winning records over his biggest rivals (Connors and McEnroe). He also won over 90% of his matches in 5 separate years (still a record) and was world number 1 for 270 weeks. That's insane consistency for anyone other than the 3 obvious guys.

 

[Skills]

I think this really is the question, peak Federer versus peak Djokovic.

Nadal isn’t in their league for me unless you’re specifically talking about clay, in which case he’s the best.

Nah that's a ridiculous take. Nadal is definitely right up there.

He's been the biggest nemesis for both Federer & Djokovic - beat Federer in the greatest ever Wimbledon final, and has played Djokovic in some epics over the years. He's fought the battle on both ends and for longer - and still came up ahead on the slam count. The two greatest rivalries of the last 20 years are Federer-Nadal & Nadal-Djokovic.

 

[Zen]

I take your point about the specialist nature of RG but still, Lendl dominated the second half of the 80s to a degree that had never been seen before and wasn't seen again until the big 3. He won almost 100 titles, reached 19 Grand Slam finals (winning 8, and 3 of the 4: only Wimbledon eluded him but he reached the final twice) and had dominant winning records over his biggest rivals (Connors and McEnroe). He also won over 90% of his matches in 5 separate years (still a record) and was world number 1 for 270 weeks. That's insane consistency for anyone other than the 3 obvious guys.

Not sure I particularly agree with that he did it first... it just looks better by modern perceptions of touring because he essentially entered the AO, Connors 74-78 was brilliant, and Borg 77-81 also generally brilliant, and well, really so was. I like Lendl... I'm just not sure I can put him above Connors, Borg or McEnroe... at a push, he'd go above McEnroe, but McEnroe still has that absolute killer 84 season, which coincidentally, Lendl ruined