Greatest mens tennis player of all time

[Kevin]

Sampras is for me the best.

Sampras' weak point is that he never won the French. But he certainly did not let any one player dominate him the way Nadal's done to Federer and Djokovic has recently done to Nadal... and Sampras played in quite a competitive era with a few big names and a top ten that truly meant something.
When Agassi came back at 25, won the Australian Open final against him and went on to play amazing for a few years beating Sampras a few times back to back (not in Grand Slams though), the latter still found a way to turn it around within one year and got back to dominating ways again beating the flamboyant character in Grand Slam finals.
Krajicek has a better head to head against Sampras with a 9 vs 8 record or something, can't think of anyone else who did.

Sampras said it best himself: with his game, he can't see any one player dominating himself. His first and second service are better than anything I see in today's tennis, he'd hold with his finger in the nose and doesn't have to slug it out most of the times on his serve.
He can genuinely play serve and volley and his volleying is top class, unlike that 'jack of all trades' guy who comes the net a few times and isn't even all that convincing, yet gets called a 'complete' player. I was watching my taped matches of him and a few youtube clips a few days ago and you just don't see that level of serving and volleying anymore.
This is a game style you see very little anymore, especially executed at world class level like Sampras can. I believe it matches up well with the super baseliners of today.

And he had the best forehand ever as well IMO, not only fast and flat, but it was a 'heavy' shot unlike Federer's. .

Anyway, it's a shame we'll never truly know, wish he was 23 now.

 

[championo]

I still don't know yet, it may well be Djokovic, his game looks complete and he can play on all surfaces. I am one of Federer's biggest fans but that there is no way he can be considered the greatest by what Nadal has been able to do to him plus during the time Federer was winning all those slams, there was nobody really challenging him. That is not a case of not giving him his credit, but he played nobody or people who were not yet ready to compete.
The kind of tennis that Nadal and Djokovic are playing now is not something Federer can do consistently.


Oh please Kevin, Nadal would have brutalized Sampras so bad that he might have been arrested.

 

[Kevin]

Oh please Kevin, Nadal would have brutalized Sampras so bad that he might have been arrested.

Nah, he won't be able to touch his service games. Sampras with his net game and forehand would rape Nadal inside out. Hard. He doesn't have to slug it out like Federer, who hasn't the serve to come into the net, nor the game from the baseline to trouble Rafa.

 

[CheadleBeagle]

With the speed of the courts now, I doubt very much that Sampras would get half-way to the net before his serve would be returned passed him. All the courts, except the indoor ones, play like clay which Sampras had no luck on. I'm a Sampras fan but his style would not be playable now. Federer has an all court game and can actually volley but it is so hard to get into the net now that he cannot utilise his game other than indoors. There were many times in the final that Djokovic or Nadal could have come in behind a fantastic ground-stroke and shortened the point but they just don't. Thus the ralleys go on and on. If they continue to play like that neither of them will be playing in 2 or 3 years time let alone when they are 30.

 

[Cold_Boy]

Federer
Sampras
Borg
Nadal/Laver

Sampras is my all time favorite by far.

 

[championo]

Thus the ralleys go on and on. If they continue to play like that neither of them will be playing in 2 or 3 years time let alone when they are 30.

Their styles are too tasking and I also wonder and worry about their longevity, but with modern supplements who knows?

 

[Kevin]

With the speed of the courts now, I doubt very much that Sampras would get half-way to the net before his serve would be returned passed him. All the courts, except the indoor ones, play like clay which Sampras had no luck on. I'm a Sampras fan but his style would not be playable now.

Well yes, the speed of the courts favour baseline play, but I think you're underestimating what is almost universally acknowledged as the best service in tennis. Federer called it that, Becker, Agassi, etc etc all agree.

It's not as fast as that of Rusedski's/Ivanisevic'/etc, but he could put it anywhere he liked at top speed and his second service was just as close to the lines hit at around 160-180 km ph. Sampras could put tremendous effect (slice, kick, you name it) AND he hit the lines.
If you look at the likes of Tsonga and Berdych, a great service will still be hard to return, slower courts or not. Sampras will be fine in that respect.

About the slower courts: the courts are still faster than claycourts and Sampras' biggest trouble with clay was actually the fact that he couldn't figure his movement on it out with the sliding and instability of it... no such trouble on hardcourts, no matter how slow. He actually slug it out with Agassi from the baseline (on every court except on, what he called, "the nasty slippery stuff"), one of the greatest returners and baseliners, and there were many similar rallies as the ones Nadal-Federer enjoy with Sampras actually doing very well.
He will still be at a disadvantage in rallies against Nadal, but he does have a far better net game than the Federer, it's his expertise whereas I find Fed's volleying not nearly as good as some people make out. He misses too many simple ones and does not finish them off, whereas Sampras made winners out of half volleys.

Bottomline: I look at Federer when playing Nadal, I see him trying to slug it out with the Spaniard from the baseline and ultimately failing. There's more than one way to Rome and you can't tell me the only way to beat Nadal is being better than him from the back.
So what is Federer lacking to change his tactics against Nadal? A big service to relieve pressure and allow him to get to the net more and better volleying.

Sampras has both and he does not have to be better than Nadal OR Federer for that matter from the baseline. You can't dismiss a 14 time grandslam winner who's never had one opponent during his playing career he could not best, baseliner or serve and volleyer.

 

[Enigma_87]

^Sampras had never had opponent like Nadal or Djkovic either. His main rival was Agassi who drifted in and out and even took a brake during Sampras reign and fell out of the top 100. On fast surfaces Sampras dominated, but didn't have a solid rival as well, Agassi was the second best there and he went to the net only to shake hands...

People talk about Federer and his troubles with Nadal, but let's not forget Federer is 5 years older than Nadal and Djokovic for the matter. That's an entire generation in terms of tennis years. Last year Federer was the only one to stop Djokovic claiming Grand slam, and did it at 30 years of age. He also had match points at the USO again(like in 2010) and Djokovic saved them again with a shot on the line.

Tennis is a game of matchups. Borg before retiring had McEnroe beating him regularly(after he matured). Federer is having a matchup with Nadal, Nadal is having with Djokovic it's normal given the complexity of the game..

 

[EdWeatherall]

It has to be Federer
Once he completed the set with the French, any little doubt was removed

 

[Ixion]

Federer winning the set would have been more impressive if he'd beaten Nadal at the French. Nadal has won the lot and beaten Federer at his peak at Wimbledon.

 

[FranklyVulgar]

I find Nadal a bit boring at times. Sampras was a bit boring to watch too. Big serve and short points.

Obviously not being the most entertaining doesnt mean you can't be the best of all time, just saying.

 

[Rams]

Tim Henman

 

[Mihajlovic]

Let's not forget Federer won some of his grand slams against opponents such as Söderling, Baghdatis, Philippoussis, and a 20-year-old Djokovic.

 

[Mihajlovic]

Ridiculous under-rating.

Whatever. He also lost five or six grand slams to Nadal.

 

[KM]

Let's not forget Federer won some of his grand slams against opponents such as Söderling, Baghdatis, Philippoussis, and a 20-year-old Djokovic.

A grand slam is a grand slam, I like how people here undervaluing Federer's quality and grand slam wins. I'd like to see Novak or Rafa or Murray being as good at 30 as Federer is right now. The majority of the Tennis players reach their peak at 24-25 so it's also fair to say that the supposed domination by Nadal on Federer happened when Fed was falling off his peak and Nadal was reaching his peak.

For all the worshiping of Sampras here, how many worthy rivals did he have in his prime?

Agassi who if anyone has read his biography will know what a complex character he was and how much he absolutely hated playing tennis. He was brilliant but he was also extremely inconsistent. Also let's not forget that Sampras's record at French Open was absolutely awful, average players like Gustavo Kuerten won the French Open but Sampras was absolutely awful at it.

I guess the main reason why people here are keen to undervalue Fed's achievements is mainly because of his personality. Still on his day he could defeat both Nadal and Novak, which at the age of 30 deserves some more credit than the guys here are willing to give him. Fed at his prime was amazing to watch, if he's giving both of them tough games at this age then we can safely say that he would've defeated both of them when he was at top of his game.

 

[KM]

Whatever. He also lost five or six grand slams to Nadal.

So has Nadal now to Djokovic(I think 3-4), does that make Nadal's achievements any less?

 

[Cheesy]

I think it's quite a difficult one at the moment. I'd probably have to say Federer, however we may be looking at two players who are in consideration in the future if they keep playing the way they are at the moment, in Nadal and Djokovic.

 

[Raoul]

Whatever. He also lost five or six grand slams to Nadal.

He won 16 slams, the fact that he was involved another five or six that he didn't win just drives home the point of how successful he's been. And that's before the consecutive weeks at number 1 streak that no one else comes near.

 

[AVARiCE]

Sampras, surely?

He could play multiple styles and had no particularly obvious weakness. I'm not a tennis fan so I'm not as clued-up as others but I've never seen a player as complete as Sampras since. Djokovic, in my (uneducated) eyes, is a tad boring. He doesn't attack his opponent, he just returns the ball with interest. Nadal, at least, tries to put his opponent on the backfoot. Federer for me is the classiest of them all, particularly his one-handed backhand. However, he never had a proper rival. When said rival did arrive in the guise of Nadal, he got his backside handed to him. No excuses, Federer should've been at his peak. I think it speaks volumes that he's not fought back, either.

Again, Sampras never let someone dominate him. He would even scores.

Just my thoughts but I'll stress again that I'm not much of a tennis watcher. My Dad and Uncle love the game which is how I get to see so much and I love Wimbledon every year but I don't follow the other tournaments. I'll catch the odd game but I won't look for them.

 

[acnumber9]

Sampras had multiple styles? You mean he served and volleyed in more than one way?

 

[vuc]

Avarice, you are wrong that Djokovic does not attack his opponents. He is the best player out there when it comes to turning defence to offense.

Murray is the player who suffers from that a lot, but this year I have noticed an improvement in that respect, and that is the reason he was able to take Djokovic to the wire IMO.

 

[ILBB15]

Djokovic, in my (uneducated) eyes, is a tad boring. He doesn't attack his opponent, he just returns the ball with interest.

Sorry but you're wrong. Djokovic likes to dictate the play and have his opponent pinned down and it's best shown in all the sets last year where he completely dominated and outplayed Nadal and the 3rd set yesterday. Still it doesn't hurt him that he's also one of the best defensive players of all time and can utilise that aswell, turning defence into attack with one shot. He can even slide on Hardcourts

Djokovic is the most complete player on the tour, clearly demonstrated last year when he became world number 1. Great forehand, massive backhand, incredible defense, covers the whole court fantastically, one of the best returners of serve of all time, great drop shots and last year also improved his serve and his volleying skills and has shown to be mentally tough.

 

[AVARiCE]

I'm not going to argue my points vehemently because I could so easily be hilariously wrong!

Sampras had multiple styles? You mean he served and volleyed in more than one way?

I remember him having a monster forehand which he deployed from the baseline. My memory is a little hazy so I might have dreamt this up but I seem to recall an opponent deliberately playing it onto his backhand constantly out of fear of his forehand. The commentator cracked a joke about it which is what I remember.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Not so much about the memory but the forehand from the baseline. I openly admit I'm not a tennis buff!

Avarice, you are wrong that Djokovic does not attack his opponents. He is the best player out there when it comes to turning defence to offense.

Murray is the player who suffers from that a lot, but this year I have noticed an improvement in that respect, and that is the reason he was able to take Djokovic to the wire IMO.

This is going to sound weird but I think we're arguing the same point. To analogise it to football, because I know a bit about that, he reminds me of a Mourinho team. Mourinho's teams tend to absorb pressure and come out of their shells to counter, often devastatingly. On balance, it's still a defensive tactic. I feel the same way about Djokovic and I think his style of play ("counterpuncher", right?) is similar. He sits on the baseline and knows he's unbreakable. As soon as he figures out a weakness, he strikes.

For me, that's not attacking tennis. It's clever and requires a hell of a lot of stamina but it's not attacking. Counter-attacking every so often couldn't be counter-attacking if you were attacking the whole way through, right?

EDIT: Sorry ILBB, I was replying when you posted. I think my answer above is still relevant in the main. I also think that me finding him boring is subjective so I can't argue that point! Personally, I still think that what you've both described is what I said was "returning the ball with interest". Again, to analogise with football, he's not constantly playing through balls but instead pulls the defence all over the place before placing one beautiful ball straight through the gap he's just made.

 

[ILBB15]

Ok, I see your point Avarice and I partly agree. I think it's one of the reasons Djokovic will be so dangerous on clay this year again. Nadal was so lucky Federer had to play his best match on clay ever in that semifinal against Djokovic. Novak didn't lose a set last year against Nadal on clay.

I so want them to meet in the French Open final

 

[Rams]

Jeremy Bates

 

[vuc]

This is going to sound weird but I think we're arguing the same point. To analogise it to football, because I know a bit about that, he reminds me of a Mourinho team. Mourinho's teams tend to absorb pressure and come out of their shells to counter, often devastatingly. On balance, it's still a defensive tactic. I feel the same way about Djokovic and I think his style of play ("counterpuncher", right?) is similar. He sits on the baseline and knows he's unbreakable. As soon as he figures out a weakness, he strikes.

For me, that's not attacking tennis. It's clever and requires a hell of a lot of stamina but it's not attacking. Counter-attacking every so often couldn't be counter-attacking if you were attacking the whole way through, right?

I can see your point. I partly agree, I think it all depends who he is playing.

If he knows he can blast the guy off the court, he is definitely offensive. If he knows he will get passed coming in to the net he will probably slug it out and look for the counter punch as you described. I guess that's why he is so dangerous, because he can mix different plays/shots seamlessly.

Overall though I would definitely say he is not a boring player.

 

[Enigma_87]

Let's not forget Federer won some of his grand slams against opponents such as Söderling, Baghdatis, Philippoussis, and a 20-year-old Djokovic.

Lets not forget Nadal won some of his slams against opponents like Puerta, Soderling, Berdych and 30 years old Federer. Same goes for Sampras, same goes for Laver and the fact that the tour was divided into pro and amateur at that time.

Borg was regularly beaten by McEnroe in the later stages of his career and when JMac matured, let's not forget Lendl lost 11 finals. Every player has some blemish in his career. There's no perfect tennis player and career results, and with Federer that happens to be Nadal and that H2H.

However tennis is played in a tournament, not like boxing. So you can beat what's in front of you. Do you still believe Nadal and Djokovic will be battling for slams in their 30's like Federer? The way they play?

Seems that people quickly forget how good was Federer in his prime. He lost 3-4 matches in the course of calendar year. This Federer is way below the level he established 5-6 years ago.

Mind you I don't believe there is a greatest one, because there are so many variables and the game changed drastically over the last 5 years.

It's more like tiers:

1 tier: Laver, Federer, Sampras, Borg
2 tier: Nadal, Agassi, Connors, Lendl, JMac
3 tier: Wilander, Becker, Djokovic, Edberg

etc.

Of course in the course of their career, Nadal and Djokovic can move one tier or two...

I feel the same way about Djokovic and I think his style of play ("counterpuncher", right?) is similar.

Is this supposed to be a joke?

He could play multiple styles and had no particularly obvious weakness.

Except if you don't count the backhand for a weakness. Sampras had 1 SF in his career at the RG and clay was an obvious weakness. He's far from complete in his game. His game is tailored made for fast surfaces. Also Agassi owned him in the AO and Sampras won his 2 AO's when Andre was out of the picture.

 

[mjs020294]

Its rather bizarre that the player that is 3rd on the Majors won list doesn't even get a mention on most peoples lists, Emerson.

I think it makes more sense to break them into two groups, pre1970, and post 1970.

Post 1970:
1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Borg
4. Nadal
5. Lendl (for now, but soon to be Djokovic)

Pre 1970:
1. Laver
2. Emerson
3. Fred Perry (got to get a Brit in somewhere)

 

[surf]

Federer for me, and I've been watching since before the open era started in 1968. If the courts weren't so slow nowadays he'd have won a lot more too.

 

[Kevin]

Sampras had multiple styles? You mean he served and volleyed in more than one way?

Huh? He had two of the biggest weapons in tennis: his service and his forehand. Chang said it best when he was asked what he sees as the perfect player: Becker's service (well he's wrong here ), Edberg's volleying, Sampras' forehand, Agassi's return and some guy I forgot about's backhand.
Check whatever highlights on youtube on Sampras' forehand: it is extremely powerful and most of all a HEAVY shot and he defined the perfect running forehand. A point wouldn't last more than 2-3 shots when he's shown on his forehand (admittedly, because he hits it flat with little topspin, the risk is also higher, so it didn't necessarily mean he's won it ).

He's given a great baseliner like Agassi and many others the run around from the back, so he isn't exactly rubbish at the back. The opposite really.

This is why he's so good. He might be a little bit less consistent than Federer at the back, but he has true weapons that were seen as the best shots in the tennis world: a monster forehand, arguably the best service in history and his net game was among the top three best serve and volleyers.

Too bad he could never figure out his movement on clay, which he admitted was his biggest problem on it.

I'm not going to argue my points vehemently because I could so easily be hilariously wrong!



I remember him having a monster forehand which he deployed from the baseline. My memory is a little hazy so I might have dreamt this up but I seem to recall an opponent deliberately playing it onto his backhand constantly out of fear of his forehand. The commentator cracked a joke about it which is what I remember.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Not so much about the memory but the forehand from the baseline. I openly admit I'm not a tennis buff!

Nah you're spot on actually. That opponent might've been anyone in the tennis world at the time.

 

[Kevin]

Sorry but you're wrong. Djokovic likes to dictate the play and have his opponent pinned down and it's best shown in all the sets last year where he completely dominated and outplayed Nadal and the 3rd set yesterday. Still it doesn't hurt him that he's also one of the best defensive players of all time and can utilise that aswell, turning defence into attack with one shot. He can even slide on Hardcourts

Djokovic is the most complete player on the tour, clearly demonstrated last year when he became world number 1. Great forehand, massive backhand, incredible defense, covers the whole court fantastically, one of the best returners of serve of all time, great drop shots and last year also improved his serve and his volleying skills and has shown to be mentally tough.

Djokovic is the most complete baseliner on the tour (ie, in the world), yes. The most complete player is Federer and I don't even think he's that great.
That doesn't mean shit though, it's like Ronaldo being more 'complete', but Messi being the master at two or three of the most important components of the sport which makes the latter the best by far.

If only Djokovic had a truly great service, he'd have to work alot less hard on his service games and would have a great chance at being the all time best...

The thing I most admire about him is his heart/spirit. I believe there have been more talented guys (Safin for example), but they couldn't dedicate themselves, nor had the bottle and fight like Djokovic.

 

[ILBB15]

Djokovic is the most complete baseliner on the tour (ie, in the world), yes. The most complete player is Federer and I don't even think he's that great.
That doesn't mean shit though, it's like Ronaldo being more 'complete', but Messi being the master at two or three of the most important components of the sport which makes the latter the best by far.

If only Djokovic had a truly great service, he'd have to work alot less hard on his service games and would have a great chance at being the all time best...

The thing I most admire about him is his heart/spirit. I believe there have been more talented guys (Safin for example), but they couldn't dedicate themselves, nor had the bottle and fight like Djokovic.

I disagree to an extent. I think that being a complete player is a huge advantage when it comes to certain matchups and playing against a specific player. For instance, Nadal vs Federer. In my opinion the main reason why Federer has so much difficulty playing Nadal is because of his one-handed backhand. Even though his backhand is graceful, it just cripples him too mutch when Nadal keeps pummeling the ball to his backhand side with the topspin, it just takes away so many options for Federer.

Djokovic on the other hand isn't bothered about which side Nadal hits it to, he can fight off the topspin and pin Nadal down from either side.

I completely agree on the last part. Not just his bottle and mental strenght while playing specific points in specific matches but also the fact that he was number three behind Federer and Nadal for so long and lost many important matches against them but he just kept on fighting until he really broke through last year. He had some really shitty patches in 09/10, losing all 4 Master Series finals he played in 09, was really bad for quite a while in 2010(I have to admit by that time I started to doubt if he'd ever become a world no.1, he was horrible) until the US Open where he beat Federer in another epic 5-set match, saving two match points aswell. He's really turned it around since then, truly remarkable achievement.

 

[Raoul]

Its rather bizarre that the player that is 3rd on the Majors won list doesn't even get a mention on most peoples lists, Emerson.

I think it makes more sense to break them into two groups, pre1970, and post 1970.

Post 1970:
1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Borg
4. Nadal
5. Lendl (for now, but soon to be Djokovic)

Pre 1970:
1. Laver
2. Emerson
3. Fred Perry (got to get a Brit in somewhere)

I agree with the first list, but don't think its worth creating two separate ones. Laver should be in the top 5. The likes of Lendl and Connors, surely would've been in the top 5 before the Federer era began.

 

[Sultan]

No mention of McEnroe anyone?

You cannot be serious!

 

[Zen]

Saying "Nadal(or whoever) would crush whoever of Sampras" isn't a fair argument. Modernisation has made todays players more durable, stronger and complete...in nearly every sport where physicality is a part of it...modern players would win if you look at it like that.

But, still, at his best, I don't think I've seen anyone play as well as Federer did for such a prolonged time, his touch was perfect and essentially the only argument against him is that he was in a bad era, which isn't exactly true, he was just THAT good....although if Safin actually cared, that could of been a truly great rivalry, as proven by their GOAT matchup in the Australian Open 05 which Safin came out on top in.

I'd have it, right now as Federer-Borg-Nadal-Sampras-Lendl(actually one of the few players I think could come out of his era into this one and still do quite well, though not as well).

 

[::sonny::]

1) Joe McEnroe
2) Bjorn Borg
3) Boris Becker
4) Lars Ulrich

 

[Mihajlovic]

Has the tennis schedule slightly increased and become busier in recent years or have top players, over a year, played approximately the same number of matches for the last three-four decades?

If today's top players are even playing more throughout the year, and with the much faster and much more physical game they're playing, I just cannot see how either Novak, Rafa or Murray will be able to do this until their 30s. It's insane.

Which in the end will not work in favour of Djokovic and especially not in favour of Murray who has so much more catching up to do. In Nole keeps the level this year this means he could potentially end up with a total of 'just' 8 GS by the end of this year. He would then need to play a bombastic 2013 only to overtake Nadal. And all that considering that Nadal or Fed or anyone else won't win any GS in the near future. Just wondering about this in context of how long he could possibly keep up this level.

 

[manux399]

Borg...!

 

[Red Dreams]

Rod Laver

 

[Red Dreams]

1) Joe McEnroe
2) Bjorn Borg
3) Boris Becker
4) Lars Ulrich

you mean John McEnroe...

just the most skillful I thought.

loved his histrionics...

bloody entertaining...