Greatest mens tennis player of all time

Nani Nana

Full Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
5,658
Supports
Whoever won the game
Not sure how you can compare the modern era with a time when wooden racquets were the norm.

Anyway. Boris Becker is my favourite of all time. The Croat is clearly the best modern era player though. Borg probably best wooden era player.
The Croat has a name and different nationality.

Had he accepted UK citizenship at the start of his career, quite sure that GOAT talk would have been settled long ago.

Many tennis fans cannot accept an Eastern European towering over "their" Western sport.
 

OleBoiii

New Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2019
Messages
6,021
Here is the list of Grand Slams won by each player at each age:

19: Federer (0) - Nadal (1) - Djokovic (0) 0-1-0
20: Federer (0) - Nadal (1) - Djokovic (1) 0-2-1
21: Federer (1) - Nadal (1) - Djokovic (0) 1-3-1
22: Federer (2) - Nadal (3) - Djokovic (0) 3-6-1
23: Federer (2) - Nadal (0) - Djokovic (1) 5-6-2
24: Federer (3) - Nadal (3) - Djokovic (3) 8-9-5
25: Federer (3) - Nadal (1) - Djokovic (1) 11-10-6
26: Federer (1) - Nadal (1) - Djokovic (0) 12-11-6
27: Federer (3) - Nadal (2) - Djokovic (2) 15-13-8
28: Federer (1) - Nadal (1) - Djokovic (3) 16-14-11
29: Federer (0) - Nadal (0) - Djokovic (1) 16-14-12
30: Federer (1) - Nadal (0) - Djokovic (0) 17-14-12
31: Federer (0) - Nadal (2) - Djokovic (3) 17-16-15
32: Federer (0) - Nadal (1) - Djokovic (2) 17-17-17
33: Federer (0) - Nadal (2) - Djokovic (1) 17-19-18
34: Federer (0) - Nadal (1) - Djokovic (1+) 17-20-19
35: Federer (2) - Nadal (N/A) - Djokovic (N/A) 19-20-19
36: Federer (1) - Nadal (N/A) - Djokovic (N/A) 20-20-19

To the best of my knowledge, players used to fall off the edge of a cliff at the age of 30 so interesting to note that Federer has won 4 of his 20 Grand Slams since he turned 30, Nadal 6 out of 20, and Djokovic 7 out of 19.
One argument for Federer is that he peaked in his mid/late 20's. The moment he was past his physical prime he had to contend with the other two GOATS in their physical prime. This could also explain Federer's comeback in his mid 30's, I guess?

But of course: Nadal and Djokovic deserve credit for having their breakthrough 1-2 years earlier than Federer and reaching a very high level quickly enough for Federer to be able to not hoard slams.
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
130,174
Location
Hollywood CA
Yes. He was different, and I loved the serve and athleticism, as well. The Booming Becker serve.
In a way, the 80s were a great era in tennis. No dominant champions and far more intrigue and competition. You never knew who was going to win which slam, which made things a hell of a lot more interesting. 17 year olds like Becker, Wilander, and Chang were showing up out of nowhere and winning slams. Fun times.
 

Spoony

The People's President
Joined
Oct 27, 2001
Messages
63,184
Location
Leve Palestina.
The Croat has a name and different nationality.

Had he accepted UK citizenship at the start of his career, quite sure that GOAT talk would have been settled long ago.

Many tennis fans cannot accept an Eastern European towering over "their" Western sport.
:lol:

I've just retired from the tennis thread. Djokovic. The Serb* is the best.

*I hope he is.
 

Daysleeper

New Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2014
Messages
4,790
Supports
Barcelona
Question: at which point does it become pedantic to focus purely on number of slams? Winning 10 slams is extremely good. 20 is just insane. And soon we might have 3 players on that number.

Can you really definitely conclude that a player with 21 slams is better than player with 20, just because the number is higher? Once you're approaching 20 slams, things like luck with injuries, timing, surface, lucky draws and other margins will start to play an increasingly bigger role.

Success, while important, is not the only important metric. Not even in some individual sports. I think that if the margin is only 1 or 2 slams, then it's a bit silly to purely lean on that argument. It's certainly a good argument to back your case, though. Particularly seeing as all 3 played in the same era(though Federer hit his peak long before Djokovic).
good points fit after seeing all 3 over the last 15-20-ish years (since Fed came onto the scene) I don’t have the slightest doubt in my mind Djokovic is the best of the three.
 

Spoony

The People's President
Joined
Oct 27, 2001
Messages
63,184
Location
Leve Palestina.
In a way, the 80s were a great era in tennis. No dominant champions and far more intrigue and competition. You never knew who was going to win which slam, which made things a hell of a lot more interesting. 17 year olds like Becker, Wilander, and Chang were showing up out of nowhere and winning slams. Fun times.

a bit older but Lendl and Edberg were very good too. You know far more about tennis than I do, but like you I did enjoy that era. Even bought Lendl tennis shirts!
 

Rawls

You'll never find, that microfilm of mine
Joined
Aug 25, 2016
Messages
700
One argument for Federer is that he peaked in his mid/late 20's. The moment he was past his physical prime he had to contend with the other two GOATS in their physical prime. This could also explain Federer's comeback in his mid 30's, I guess?

But of course: Nadal and Djokovic deserve credit for having their breakthrough 1-2 years earlier than Federer and reaching a very high level quickly enough for Federer to be able to not hoard slams.
Nadal and Djokovic may have won a slam earlier in their careers than Federer did but I wouldn't go so far as to say they broke through earlier. Nadal, I think, beat Federer on Hard in Miami in 2005 but in my eyes, I don't think he really broke through on Hard/Grass until 2007/2008. Djokovic won the AO in 2008 but went off the boil for a while so hard to say he had made much of a break-through until 2011.

I tend to agree with you that a lot of Federer's prime came in the years before Nadal and Djokovic broke through, and Federer was not quite at his peak when Djokovic was at his peak (And to some extent when Nadal was at his peak, although the argument is not as strong here). But the main argument I would make is that traditionally, players fell off the cliff after hitting 30, and that you would naturally expect that the players most able to compete after the age of 30 would be those who are technically gifted than physically gifted.
 

Beachryan

More helpful with spreadsheets than Phurry
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
11,666
Agreed that by all clear metrics Djokivic is the best.

But while the mind acknowledges that, the heart will always say Fed. His peak was - as a tennis player - exactly what tennis should look like. And he basically went to every major semi final for what felt like a decade. That's insane.

Finally, I hate Djokovics tactic with his toss. I refuse to believe it's anything other than gamesmanship and would drive me utterly insane as a returner.
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
49,625
Location
London
The Croat has a name and different nationality.

Had he accepted UK citizenship at the start of his career, quite sure that GOAT talk would have been settled long ago.

Many tennis fans cannot accept an Eastern European towering over "their" Western sport.
:lol:
 

Murder on Zidane's Floor

You'd better not kill Giroud
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
28,629
Agreed that by all clear metrics Djokivic is the best.

But while the mind acknowledges that, the heart will always say Fed. His peak was - as a tennis player - exactly what tennis should look like. And he basically went to every major semi final for what felt like a decade. That's insane.

Finally, I hate Djokovics tactic with his toss. I refuse to believe it's anything other than gamesmanship and would drive me utterly insane as a returner.
I agree Federer is the best *tennis player of all time. Djokovic is the best player of all time.
 

Bole Top

Full Member
Joined
May 2, 2014
Messages
3,533
Not sure how you can compare the modern era with a time when wooden racquets were the norm.
not only that, but also the changes with the tournaments are rarely taken into consideration. for example, Australian Open was grass court tournament until the late 80's and in past it didn't have fixed timing like today, when it's always played in january. it was perfectly normal for AO to be played sometimes in december, sometimes in march, sometimes in august etc. there are clear differences between AO Djokovic is winning and the ones Laver was winning.
 

Zen

Full Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2008
Messages
14,518
Forget that fact that no one overly cared about the AO until Federer really. It was either skipped relentlessly or the tune up slam. If Borg took all 4 seriously... even up to 26, he'd have more than 11. Same with Connors, in his true 5 year peak.... he skipped the AO/French 8 times between them - he reached the final in all but one occasion when he did show in that 5 year span.
 

Acheron

Full Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
2,883
Supports
Real Madrid
There's a strong case for Djokovic now but I get people preferring Federer at their best there isn't much difference between the two. At this point I think Nadal has fallen behind them but still probably the best clay player and one of the best overall.
 

UnrelatedPsuedo

I pity the poor fool who stinks like I do!
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Messages
10,223
Location
Blitztown
There's a strong case for Djokovic now but I get people preferring Federer at their best there isn't much difference between the two. At this point I think Nadal has fallen behind them but still probably the best clay player and one of the best overall.
Djokovic may be the best technical player ever. Nadal the best specialist by a huge margin. Federer the best in totality.
 

UweBein

Creator of the Worst Analogy on the Internet.
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
3,729
Location
Köln
Supports
Chelsea
All I know is that they should rename FO to Rafa Nadal Open.
 

Traub

Full Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2009
Messages
10,239
Djok will end up with the most slams when it’s all said and done. However, he’s a dick so feck him.

Also, I think the Fed Nadal rivalry really took tennis to the next level both in terms of athleticism and viewership.
 

Daysleeper

New Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2014
Messages
4,790
Supports
Barcelona
There's a strong case for Djokovic now but I get people preferring Federer at their best there isn't much difference between the two. At this point I think Nadal has fallen behind them but still probably the best clay player and one of the best overall.
No way, Federer will go by way of Sampras. Phenomenal player, but Nadal overtook him some time back only to be usurped by Djokovic. Federer is #3 all time for me.
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
130,174
Location
Hollywood CA
There's a strong case for Djokovic now but I get people preferring Federer at their best there isn't much difference between the two. At this point I think Nadal has fallen behind them but still probably the best clay player and one of the best overall.
Agreed, and ultimately when there is some degree of debate, a lot of people are going to naturally gravitate towards the player they like the most or most enjoyed watching, which will likely be Fed. Djokovic could of course put all of these issues to bed this year if he wins the grand slam.
 

Acheron

Full Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
2,883
Supports
Real Madrid
Djokovic may be the best technical player ever. Nadal the best specialist by a huge margin. Federer the best in totality.
That's a good way to summarize it and it's a shame Federer isn't 5/4 years younger to keep competing with them.
 

GueRed

Full Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
2,890
Location
London
casual tennis fan here,

Becker, Edberg, McEnroe, Sampras, Agassi, Djokovic, Federer and Nadal the best I've watched...

The best of the best? I'll go for Federer.

Made it look so easy.
 

Avatar

Full Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2009
Messages
3,665
Location
Egypt
Supports
Barcelona
As I mentioned in another thread; Federer is the most artistic, Nadal the most athletic, Djokovic the most intelligent.

As for GOATs debates in any field, I find them more of a media thing or mererly a reflection of human passion for ranking, than being rigourous logic or science

1) You can't capture art with numbers; and art does matter, probably more than stats (e,g Maradona)
2) You can't compare different eras
3) Even for the stats part, you'd need a more complex objective model than the ridiculous single stat of winning Grand Slams in Tennis, or World Cups in football; why not the ATP finals for example, where you face the top 8, or the Champions league, or national league?!
 

Mark_Barca

Full Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2016
Messages
2,268
Supports
Barcelona
"It seems it's all about Grand Slam titles nowadays and I don't like that," Federer said in Halle.

“I just wanted to break Pete's record. I always said everything that comes after 15 titles was a bonus."

Not sure he had the same viewpoint when he was ahead in the Grand Slams tbh.
 

Zen

Full Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2008
Messages
14,518
Yeah, Feds not overly happy about it. It’s been obvious for a while, well since Novak did everything he could plus a bit more really.... he could hold off Nadal on the basis on Nadal’s legacy being heavily clay-centric.

He loved it at the top - something others didn’t - Borg, Mcenroe etc. Novak’s never truly had to deal with that fame, or Nadal(though bigger than Novak) really... because Fed as the celeb absolutely trumped them.

And now Nadal’s doing what his fanbase has been crushing Fed for doing with clay ... “listening to his body” and skipping the slam he has no chance at, wheres Novak gonna start skipping :lol:
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
130,174
Location
Hollywood CA
The internet and social media are largely responsible for the stupefying of Tennis (and all sports as well) with their Messi v Ronaldo style debates, which have subsequently made their way into Tennis and made the sport appear all about slams and nothing else. So in a way, Fed would be spot on since there is progressively less attention payed to most of the other non-slam ATP events.
 

Mark_Barca

Full Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2016
Messages
2,268
Supports
Barcelona
Yeah, Feds not overly happy about it. It’s been obvious for a while, well since Novak did everything he could plus a bit more really.... he could hold off Nadal on the basis on Nadal’s legacy being heavily clay-centric.

He loved it at the top - something others didn’t - Borg, Mcenroe etc. Novak’s never truly had to deal with that fame, or Nadal(though bigger than Novak) really... because Fed as the celeb absolutely trumped them.

And now Nadal’s doing what his fanbase has been crushing Fed for doing with clay ... “listening to his body” and skipping the slam he has no chance at, wheres Novak gonna start skipping :lol:
He's been skipping master events recently, think over the next 2-3 years he will start to skip a few more events and concentrate more on slams only. Actually think he alluded to that earlier this year?
 

Zen

Full Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2008
Messages
14,518
No one really cares about anyone skipping Masters events really. People skip them at their peak fitness forget mid 30’s.
 

Kazi

Full Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
11,319
Location
SIIIUUUUUU
My favrouite part is how upset Federer and his fans are about the whole situation. They never saw it coming 10 years ago :lol:
 

TheLiverBird

Full Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2014
Messages
1,708
No way, Federer will go by way of Sampras. Phenomenal player, but Nadal overtook him some time back only to be usurped by Djokovic. Federer is #3 all time for me.
Each to their own but Nadal will always be number 3 for me

that’s no bad thing either, but Nadal’s slam haul for example is so lopsided with his FO wins, he’s never dominated the other 3 Grand Slams like Fed or Djokovic, but we will never in our lifetime see a better clay court player again, not imo atleast, I’d be shocked if we did

Federer will have his GS haul beaten by the other 2, and in truth Djokovic on paper will be viewed as the GOAT, his stats back it up

but there’s a reason most public polls still have Fed as number 1, at their best, Federer’s style wins by some distance, there’s nothing like peak Federer style, pure tennis porn

love the life out of Peak Djokovic and Nadal, spectacular to watch and jaw dropping

but Federer at peak Levels was god worthy, and I’m an atheist
 

NasirTimothy

New Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2021
Messages
2,388
Supports
Enyimba F.C.
In a way, the 80s were a great era in tennis. No dominant champions and far more intrigue and competition. You never knew who was going to win which slam, which made things a hell of a lot more interesting. 17 year olds like Becker, Wilander, and Chang were showing up out of nowhere and winning slams. Fun times.
Yes but none of those players were anywhere near as good as the big three