How mad must it make Murray that he'll never get to face someone as shit as Roddick in a GS Final?
Greatest mens tennis player of all time
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Roddick schooled Murray at Wimbledon the one time he didn't get Nadal(I know Murray has beaten him btw, but he was in terrible form for a while and Murray IS the better player tbh, but again a case of being the new generation). Immensely unfair on him that he has this joke tag on him now, definitely a one dimensional player, but an immensely effective one, and would of been quite high up on the all time grand slam wins had Federer not been around or even just not as consistent, certainly would would of won at least one at the Aussie, Wimbledon(probably 3-4) and obviously more US Opens. The loss at Wimbledon 2009 was simply just unfair, no one other player who didn't win deserves a Wimbledon title more, not Henman, not Goran when he finally won it, not even Lendl imo.
I agree. Federer is surely the best tennis player ever. On top of his form, he was untouchable. People forget that he now plays against others in their prime and its very hard, as Sampras had to find out when he lost to Federer aged 20. The way Federer played Tennis was like Zidane playing football - so much class, so much excellence, just superior than anyone else. He truly deserves to be labelled the best
Like a Cantona of tennis
What people are saying is that Federer is spoiling his legacy by coming across as an arrogant twat in many interviews whenever he loses. I'm sorry but looking for a gold standard in an individual sport must also include looking at one's personality.
Pelé's ridiculous outbursts at Messi and Maradona back in the day have played a part in him losing much of his aura.
Mad enough to work on his second serve, hopefully.
I've always wondered how many Open's Laver would've won if professional players could take part in them for those five years he was ineligible. As it was he won 11, including all four the year before he turned professional, and all four the second year after he was allowed back in. You have to think he would have won at least another five during that five year period, and in all likelihood would've set a record that the likes of Sampras and Federer would never have beaten.
Of course, if I'm getting into the hypothetical's then it also has to be acknowledged that his earlier slams came at a time when professional players couldn't take part, so he may not have won as many of them as he did in those early years.
Of course, if I'm getting into the hypothetical's then it also has to be acknowledged that his earlier slams came at a time when professional players couldn't take part, so he may not have won as many of them as he did in those early years.
You have to set those 5 "lost" years in the pro ranks against the grand slams he won in 1961 and 1962, when he was not by any stretch the best player in the world - just the best amateur. Rosewall and Gonzales were better players at that time.
1. Fed
2. Sampras
3. Borg
4. Connors
5. Lendl / Edberg / McEnroe / Wilander
Never saw Laver to comment on him. Agassi I am sure should be included in the top 10 but I hated him
2. Sampras
3. Borg
4. Connors
5. Lendl / Edberg / McEnroe / Wilander
Never saw Laver to comment on him. Agassi I am sure should be included in the top 10 but I hated him
You'd put Edberg on a par with McEnroe, really?
That's a fair post 1970 list. Agassi would probably sneak into number 5 if you didn't hate him so much.
To me:
Federer
Sampras
Borg
Laver
Nadal
Federer
Sampras
Borg
Laver
Nadal
no one mention Ilie Nastase, he was John McEnroe's "godfather"
I was told that after Borg lost to McEnroe he quit, because he realized this guy was so much better he would just tarnish his reputation to continue and end up losing to him again.
So I'd think McEnroe should be above Borg.
So I'd think McEnroe should be above Borg.
Djokovic :trollface:
Nadal beat Federer the very first team they played and in straight sets and on hard courts. Federer was at his peak at this time.
Federer is one of best of all time but he's won a lot of Slams when his "competition" was one shot wonder Roddick and Hewitt. Nadal and Djokovic have had to come up against Federer to win their Slams.
Federer is one of best of all time but he's won a lot of Slams when his "competition" was one shot wonder Roddick and Hewitt. Nadal and Djokovic have had to come up against Federer to win their Slams.
He threw away the 2009 title. Having set points for a 2 sets to love lead and then to miss the volley that he did at set point is criminal.
Pistol Pete for me.
Although Boris Becker is still my favourite.
Although Boris Becker is still my favourite.
Dont know who the best player was, but the best DJ has to be DJ Okovic
From the time I have been watching, for me it has to be Pete Sampras.
Pete Sampras.
Any changes 5 years on ?
Nice necro lol.
Another one for Roger but even if he hadn't win today he was going to be still regarded as the best ever.
Another one for Roger but even if he hadn't win today he was going to be still regarded as the best ever.
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
4. Murray
That's it. The rest don't compare. The standard was nowhere near as high.
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
4. Murray
That's it. The rest don't compare. The standard was nowhere near as high.
MurrayHe won the Davis Cup, with British teammates. Maradona's single-handed efforts are nothing compared to that.
Federer has gotta be considered the best ever at this point.
I too young to have seen guys like Laver or Borg play, but in my life of watching tennis I'd go with...
1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Nadal
4. Djokovic
5. Agassi
I too young to have seen guys like Laver or Borg play, but in my life of watching tennis I'd go with...
1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Nadal
4. Djokovic
5. Agassi
Even if Federer lost today I don't think it would've changed anything.
Fed is still #1 and since then Nadal/Djokovic moved up couple of places, apart from that it's pretty much the same picture.
That bit is ridiculous and always has been a myth. A guy like Wawrinka, who Federer spanks regularly even off his peak is a 3 times GS winner these days. Nothing to take away from him of course - fully deserved that, but that wouldn't be possible playing against peak Federer. Same goes really for Djokovic/Murray who Federer beats regularly deep in his 30's as well.
During Fed's peak his h2h with Nadal was 6-8 in Nadal's favor with only 2 of those wins for Nadal (no majors) came off clay.
In the end of the day it's titles that matters, as tennis is no boxing and Federer has the most of those that matter.
Best singles players I've seen are Laver, Borg, McEnroe, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic. 3 left handers out of 6.
Sampras not so much. He won a lot of majors but wasn't a great all court player - see his (lack of) record in the French open. His backhand would be punished by the top players of today.
McEnroe didn't win so many majors but is up there with Nastase and Federer as the player with the most racket ability. What they couldn't do with a tennis racket isn't worth doing.
Sampras not so much. He won a lot of majors but wasn't a great all court player - see his (lack of) record in the French open. His backhand would be punished by the top players of today.
McEnroe didn't win so many majors but is up there with Nastase and Federer as the player with the most racket ability. What they couldn't do with a tennis racket isn't worth doing.
I always thought McEnroe was sandwiched into a difficult period where he started while Borg was at his peak, then once he had a couple of good years, Lendl suddenly emerged to take over the number 1.
If you read his biography it seems that he was affected by Borg's early retirement. They (and Gerulaitis) were friends as well as rivals and he said it just wasn't the same afterwards. His loss to Connors in the 82 Wimbledon final was hard to fathom as he was so much the better player at that point. But for that he would have won 4 Wimbledons in a row. He was also probably the best doubles player I've seen, easily the best among the singles greats.
Peter Fleming if i recall correctly.
Yes, Fleming was his partner. A big right handed power player who was a good foil for McEnroe's left handed genius.
Laver is a bit of a what if. I mean he's clearly one of the greatest, but if he'd had that six years he'd probably be beyond Federer. Different times and all that but still a record that's unlikely to be topped (the two calendar Grand Slams).
I'm a Nadal man of the current crop but it's hard to argue with Federer's achievements. Genius.
I'm a Nadal man of the current crop but it's hard to argue with Federer's achievements. Genius.
1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Nadal
4. Sampras
From my lifetime. Djokovic over Nadal due to Slam H2H, versatility and the fact that he's likely to catch up or win even more Slams than Rafa. No problem if order is flipped.
2. Djokovic
3. Nadal
4. Sampras
From my lifetime. Djokovic over Nadal due to Slam H2H, versatility and the fact that he's likely to catch up or win even more Slams than Rafa. No problem if order is flipped.
1) Federer & Nadal
3) Djokovic
4) Sampras
5) Agassi
...from my time of watching.
Federer, Nadal, Borg, Laver and Djokovic for all-time.
3) Djokovic
4) Sampras
5) Agassi
...from my time of watching.
Federer, Nadal, Borg, Laver and Djokovic for all-time.
On the other hand, his early victories, up to and including the 1962 grand slam, were against a depleted field because the best players like Gonzales and Rosewall were barred by being professionals. When Laver turned professional after the 1962 season he was clearly not the best player among them and it took him a while to become the top professional. Swings and roundabouts.
I'm not denying Fed is top of the GOAT debate but you just can't deny the fact that he picked up a lot of majors when he had no competition. I'd kill to have seen Nadal for a year or two with one shot wonders like Roddick as his greatest rival.
As for Stan, he's beaten peak Djokovic for each of his slams so he's not had it easy either. Nadal, Murray and Djokovic just genuinely have had to battle far harder for their slams as compared to Fed steamrolling it against poor opposition for 2 years. Fed is still GOAT though and I won't deny that.
True but he was the number one pro by '64 so I think it's fair to say he could have added 7 slams in between.