Greatest mens tennis player of all time

[RedRonaldo]

And he was 19 years old. The fact that he was world number 2 tells how weak that era was.

All versions of Nadal from 2008 onwards were better - at least at the slams.

To be fair, 2021-2022 was weak era too, accordingly to your standard.

For example, Djokovic has having a free run in GS last year, without any strong opponents.

Nadal was kind of having a free run this year too, as there is no Djokovic in Australian open, then in french open, Zverev got injured in semi, whereas Ruud was one of his easiest opponents in GS final.

Not to mention a 19 year old protégée Alcaraz beating the likes of Djokovic and Nadal convincingly just 1 month ago in Madrid Open, tells how weak this era is.

 

[Zen]

And he was 19 years old. The fact that he was world number 2 tells how weak that era was.

All versions of Nadal from 2008 onwards were better - at least at the slams.

Because the 05-08 Nadal is the greatest thing ever seen on Clay. And if you are genuinely good on clay, you can quite comfortably rack up the points - Muster, Rios, Coria etc etc.

Your argument is very flawed, Boris Becker was the best grass player by 18 - but couldn't make it to the top of the rankings by virtue of there only being a one month window to rack up points. Grass happens to be, at the time at least, where pretty much every elite player wanted to be at too, and he was the best... at 18.

Also - both Borg and Becker were ranked 2 at 18.

 

[Samid]

We need a poll @Raoul

 

[Raoul]

We need a poll @Raoul

Polls are useless immediately after an event because most voters base their opinion on the result of the moment. A poll later in the year - a month or so after the Open would be far more informative.

 

[SinNombre]

Last few years have indeed been a weak era.

Federer peak 2005-2010
Nadal peak 2008-2013
Djokovic peak 2011-2016

Wawrinka and Murray were competitive in 2015-17

post 2017 has been weak, as was pre 2008.

Arguably the Goat season was Djokovic’s 2011 season

 

[AshRK]

It was also by far a weaker era. He was more dominant because his competition was non existant. A young Nadal took him to 5 sets at Wimbledon in 2007 and then defeated in the 08 final.

Nadal 2010 & Djokovic 2011 played tennis at a higher level.

Not really sure about that. I feel tennis at this moment is at its weakest. Appreciate what Nadal is doing but he is very much lucky as well.

 

[Ladron de redcafe]

Djokovic isn't even in the discussion. It's Nadal's now and comfortably his.
He owns the slam head to heads against both Federer and Djokovic, incidentally.

 

[Yagami]

I'll probably regret posting in this thread as it seems so toxic based on fans of each player, which is particularly sad given how warm the relationship is between Federer and Nadal.

Anyway for me it's still a toss up between the big 3 - Nadal has more grand slams in numbers but he's still extremely clay heavy - it's the only one he's won more than either of the other 2 - so it balances out.

I still think Djokovic will end up leading the race eventually, and will end up the most successful. He'll never be the greatest to be though as I just can't stand his game, it's as dull as it is effective.

All three of them are heavy on their favoured surfaces, to be fair. Take away Federer's slams on grass and Djokovic's on hard and there isn't that much in it.

I get what you mean, but some very best tennis players start to enter their peak at age 22. Sampras was world no.1 at 22, Jim Connors was no.1 at 22 too, so was McEnroe, no.1 at 22. Then we have Federer who was no.1 at 23, Bjorn Borg was no.1 at 23.

And this year, we have Alcaraz, age 19, beating the likes of Djokovic and Nadal convincingly not long ago in Madrid open.

Nadal had just come back from a rib injury, to be fair. I think he said he still wasn't feeling right going into that game.

Polls are useless immediately after an event because most voters base their opinion on the result of the moment. A poll later in the year - a month or so after the Open would be far more informative.

A poll will be pointless until all three retire. Nadal and Djokovic look like they've got more in them. Federer's done and resting in 3rd place now, though.

 

[Zen]

All three of them are heavy on their favoured surfaces, to be fair. Take away Federer's slams on grass and Djokovic's on hard and there isn't that much in it.

Well not really. It kinda flips it.

22 - 14 = 8 (8 RU)
20 - 9 = 11 (11 RU)
20 - 8 = 12 (8 RU) - Federer's actually the only one to lose a final on his favoured surface too. 4 times too, so is it actually his favourite?

Both of them have a stronger diverse case than Nadal, but Nadal's utter and quite frankly absurd greatness at RG/Clay in general has to counter that in itself. So equals it out, surely?

 

[sun_tzu]

Djokovic isn't even in the discussion. It's Nadal's now and comfortably his.
He owns the slam head to heads against both Federer and Djokovic, incidentally.

Subjective but most weeks as world no1... if not for covid probably by an even bigger margin and potentially an extra slam

He wouldn't be my pick but I can see how people can make a decent argument for him.

 

[Abraxas]

Tennis certainly isn't my area of expertise but if entertainment value and the sheer enjoyment of watching them factors in, it's Federer for me. His tennis just flows in a way the others don't. Nadal and Djokovic have that insane athleticism and defence, whereas there is just an aesthetic quality to the way Federer strikes the ball.

 

[The Hilton]

All three of them are heavy on their favoured surfaces, to be fair. Take away Federer's slams on grass and Djokovic's on hard and there isn't that much in it.

If you take away their best grand slam, Fed and Djok still both have better records at 2 out of the 3 remaining ones. Nadal can win the next 1000 French Opens, but to be the best he needs to overtake the other 2 at one of the others, otherwise it just furthers the narrative that he's the master of Clay.

 

[saivet]

If you take away their best grand slam, Fed and Djok still both have better records at 2 out of the 3 remaining ones. Nadal can win the next 1000 French Opens, but to be the best he needs to overtake the other 2 at one of the others, otherwise it just furthers the narrative that he's the master of Clay.

I think it's a bit reductive to be taking away titles from players as a way to discount Nadal. He's won them all at least twice. He's beaten Federer at Wimbledon and Djokovic twice in US Open finals and actually has more US Opens than Djokovic too.

Well not really. It kinda flips it.

22 - 14 = 8 (8 RU)
20 - 9 = 11 (11 RU)
20 - 8 = 12 (8 RU) - Federer's actually the only one to lose a final on his favoured surface too. 4 times too, so is it actually his favourite?

Not his best hard court grandslam at all but Djokovic has lost US Open finals to Nadal (x2), Wawrinka and Medvedec

 

[Zen]

Not his best hard court grandslam at all but Djokovic has lost US Open finals to Nadal (x2), Wawrinka and Medvedec

He's lost 6 actually - Federer 07 and Murray 12. Really odd his record at US.

 

[Frasbul]

Unpopular opinion: I don‘t think Djokovic will win another slam.

 

[Skills]

Unpopular opinion: I don‘t think Djokovic will win another slam.

Who do you think wins Wimbledon?

 

[SinNombre]

Djokovic is overwhelming favourite to win Wimbledon.

GOAT race is strictly between him and Nadal.

If the gap is still 2 GS at the end of this year, I think Rafa takes it.

 

[saivet]

Who do you think wins Wimbledon?

It would be a shock if it's anyone but Djokovic. The men's grass court field is as weaks as I can remember.

Even ignoring that, Nadal is a major doubt, Zverev is injured, Medvedev can't play and Berrettini is only just returning from injury.

FAA is possibly the one player I can think of who is half decent on grass but I'd be amazed if he won Wimbledon.

 

[Brophs]

It would be a shock if it's anyone but Djokovic. The men's grass court field is as weaks as I can remember.

Even ignoring that, Nadal is a major doubt, Zverev is injured, Medvedev can't play and Berrettini is only just returning from injury.

FAA is possibly the one player I can think of who is half decent on grass but I'd be amazed if he won Wimbledon.

Yep. Given the choice between Djokovic or the field I’d have Djokovic.

The last time Wimbledon was won by someone other a member of the Big 3 and Murray was 2002. The last time Wimbledon was won by someone other than Djokovic was 2017. Grass is a very particular skill and the current crop haven’t come close to mastering it.

 

[Zen]

It would be a shock if it's anyone but Djokovic. The men's grass court field is as weaks as I can remember.

Even ignoring that, Nadal is a major doubt, Zverev is injured, Medvedev can't play and Berrettini is only just returning from injury.

FAA is possibly the one player I can think of who is half decent on grass but I'd be amazed if he won Wimbledon.

I didn't actually put all that together. Explains why an almost certainly not even wildcarding Federer is 25/1 and Alcarez 5/1

Down to you Murray to bring the ratings.

 

[Widow]

If you take away their best grand slam, Fed and Djok still both have better records at 2 out of the 3 remaining ones. Nadal can win the next 1000 French Opens, but to be the best he needs to overtake the other 2 at one of the others, otherwise it just furthers the narrative that he's the master of Clay.

This.

Nadal is a great player but his stats are bumped by his wins at RG.

 

[Raoul]

If you take away their best grand slam, Fed and Djok still both have better records at 2 out of the 3 remaining ones. Nadal can win the next 1000 French Opens, but to be the best he needs to overtake the other 2 at one of the others, otherwise it just furthers the narrative that he's the master of Clay.

Even though the French is arguably 3rd out of 4 in the pantheon of respected slams, it’s still a slam and winning it 14 times is a ridiculous accomplishment.

He’s also beaten Federer - the greatest grass court player - on his own surface at Wimbledon, so all things said it would be hard to argue against Nadal being the best ever.

This all could of course change if Djokovic wins the next two slams, which is entirely possible. Whoever retires with the most slams would be wise to finish with 2-3 more than the next guy to squash any lingering questions. I predicted a while back Djokovic would finish with 25, which I still think could happen.

 

[Skills]

Even though the French is arguably 3rd out of 4 in the pantheon of respected slams, it’s still a slam and winning it 14 times is a ridiculous accomplishment.

He’s also beaten Federer - the greatest grass court player - on his own surface at Wimbledon, so all things said it would be hard to argue against Nadal being the best ever.

This all could of course change if Djokovic wins the next two slams, which is entirely possible. Whoever retires with the most slams would be wise to finish with 2-3 more than the next guy to squash any lingering questions. I predicted a while back Djokovic would finish with 25, which I still think could happen.

Will he even be allowed to compete at the US Open though with his vaccination status? I don't think he'll be allowed in Australia too

 

[Zen]

Will he even be allowed to compete at the US Open though with his vaccination status? I don't think he'll be allowed in Australia too

Why would they allow him last year.... and not this year?

 

[SinNombre]

If Nadal is not playing, I would put Wimbledon win probabilities as
Djokovic 90%
FAA 5%
Field 5%

If Nadal is playing,
Djokovic 75%
Nadal 20%
FAA 5%
Field 5%

I actually would be surprised if Nadal didn’t play Wimbledon. That would mean his foot is in a pretty bad state.

None of the younger lot know how to play on grass.

 

[Skills]

Why would they allow him last year.... and not this year?

The law changed in November iirc

 

[RobinLFC]

The law changed in November iirc

Unvaccinated NBA players have been allowed back since March in NY, so I'd be surprised if Djokovic isn't allowed to play.

 

[tentan]

14 French Open titles - that's the same as all of Sampras's grand slams put together. Incredible, that record will never be broken.

 

[The Man Himself]

Would still rather watch him if I was picking any of the 3 though

Which is OK, that's personal choice. Watching Federer was always a joy for most anyways.

 

[Yagami]

Well not really. It kinda flips it.

22 - 14 = 8 (8 RU)
20 - 9 = 11 (11 RU)
20 - 8 = 12 (8 RU) - Federer's actually the only one to lose a final on his favoured surface too. 4 times too, so is it actually his favourite?

Both of them have a stronger diverse case than Nadal, but Nadal's utter and quite frankly absurd greatness at RG/Clay in general has to counter that in itself. So equals it out, surely?

Well, Djokovic would actually be on 8, the same as Nadal. Plus Nadal beat Djokovic on his favoured surface in two finals.

If you take away their best grand slam, Fed and Djok still both have better records at 2 out of the 3 remaining ones. Nadal can win the next 1000 French Opens, but to be the best he needs to overtake the other 2 at one of the others, otherwise it just furthers the narrative that he's the master of Clay.

I disagree. 8 slams outside of his favoured surface (same as Djokovic and only 3 behind Federer) is still great. He beat Federer and Djokovic in finals on their surface, too. Neither managed that against Nadal. Though Djokovic has at least beaten him at the French Open.

The fact that Nadal has more USO s than Djokovic is really impressive, too.

Even though the French is arguably 3rd out of 4 in the pantheon of respected slams, it’s still a slam and winning it 14 times is a ridiculous accomplishment.

He’s also beaten Federer - the greatest grass court player - on his own surface at Wimbledon, so all things said it would be hard to argue against Nadal being the best ever.

This all could of course change if Djokovic wins the next two slams, which is entirely possible. Whoever retires with the most slams would be wise to finish with 2-3 more than the next guy to squash any lingering questions. I predicted a while back Djokovic would finish with 25, which I still think could happen.

I'm sure I've read that Federer said "conquering Roland Garros" was one of the most important moments of his career. Clay gets looked more down upon than the other two but it's of equal importance.

 

[The Hilton]

Even though the French is arguably 3rd out of 4 in the pantheon of respected slams, it’s still a slam and winning it 14 times is a ridiculous accomplishment.

He’s also beaten Federer - the greatest grass court player - on his own surface at Wimbledon, so all things said it would be hard to argue against Nadal being the best ever.

This all could of course change if Djokovic wins the next two slams, which is entirely possible. Whoever retires with the most slams would be wise to finish with 2-3 more than the next guy to squash any lingering questions. I predicted a while back Djokovic would finish with 25, which I still think could happen.

It's not hard to argue at all, it all depends on your criteria. For me Nadal's record is so clay heavy and he needs to be more successful on other surfaces to be called the greatest. As I said, take each slam individually, he's won 1/4 of them more than Federer, and 2/4 more than Djokovic. To stand alone at the top of the pantheon, those numbers need to be 3/4.

 

[The Hilton]

I disagree. 8 slams outside of his favoured surface (same as Djokovic and only 3 behind Federer) is still great. He beat Federer and Djokovic in finals on their surface, too. Neither managed that against Nadal. Though Djokovic has at least beaten him at the French Open.

The fact that Nadal has more USO s than Djokovic is really impressive, too.

Of course its great, he's one of the 3 greatest players ever, everything these guys do is "great" and "really impressive". All I'm saying is that he's won 1 out of 4 grand slams more than Fed, and 2/4 more than Djok, and to stand alone at the top of the mountain those records need to be better. Winning every French Open from now until the end of time won't change that, but a few more US Opens will.

 

[Raoul]

It's not hard to argue at all, it all depends on your criteria. For me Nadal's record is so clay heavy and he needs to be more successful on other surfaces to be called the greatest. As I said, take each slam individually, he's won 1/4 of them more than Federer, and 2/4 more than Djokovic. To stand alone at the top of the pantheon, those numbers need to be 3/4.

Slams are obviously not the only criteria. Other big tournaments and head to heads against the others should be considered.

 

[Ibi Dreams]

Federer is Messi and Nadal/Djokovic are Ronaldo

 

[The Hilton]

Slams are obviously not the only criteria. Other big tournaments and head to heads against the others should be considered.

As should a whole bunch of factors, such as style, longevity, etc. It's only "difficult to argue against Nadal being the greatest" if you cherry pick the criteria to make it so, as all 3 of the main guys have criteria that favour them.

Anyway I said I'd regret posting in this thread, and I was correct. Unfortunately it's mostly nothing to do with "greatest", and is rather "each posters favourite of the big 3". Not including you specifically in that, but it's a boring circular discussion for the most part.

 

[Raoul]

As should a whole bunch of factors, such as style, longevity, etc. It's only "difficult to argue against Nadal being the greatest" if you cherry pick the criteria to make it so, as all 3 of the main guys have criteria that favour them.

Anyway I said I'd regret posting in this thread, and I was correct. Unfortunately it's mostly nothing to do with "greatest", and is rather "each posters favourite of the big 3". Not including you specifically in that, but it's a boring circular discussion for the most part.

Things like style are subjective.

There are however widely accepted objective criteria such as slams won, Masters titles won, and H2H among the three top players. If you combine these, Nadal comes out ahead.

Stylistically, I found Ferderer far more interesting to watch than the others, but Nadal’s slam titles combined with the other two factors leaves him ahead of Djokovic.

 

[Zen]

Well, Djokovic would actually be on 8, the same as Nadal. Plus Nadal beat Djokovic on his favoured surface in two finals.

I disagree. 8 slams outside of his favoured surface (same as Djokovic and only 3 behind Federer) is still great. He beat Federer and Djokovic in finals on their surface, too. Neither managed that against Nadal. Though Djokovic has at least beaten him at the French Open.

The fact that Nadal has more USO s than Djokovic is really impressive, too.

I'm sure I've read that Federer said "conquering Roland Garros" was one of the most important moments of his career. Clay gets looked more down upon than the other two but it's of equal importance.

AO and US aren’t quite the same fyi. You can’t casually count 1 for the others than 2 for Novak. It’s 12 or don't bother using that argument as it’s not fair and consistent.

 

[GuybrushThreepwood]

If Djokovic had beaten Medvedev in the US Open final last September, I think he could have ended the ‘GOAT’ debate there and then.

A calendar year grand slam, alongside his non-calendar grand slam from 2015-2016. would have been absolutely huge, and even Nadal re-taking the lead / moving past him again in the grand slam count wouldn’t have made up for that.

As someone who doesn’t like Djokovic and much prefers Nadal, I’m delighted that Medvedev stopped him last September, and then really messed up against Nadal in Melbourne earlier this year !

 

[sun_tzu]

If Djokovic had beaten Medvedev in the US Open final last September, I think he could have ended the ‘GOAT’ debate there and then.

A calendar year grand slam, alongside his non-calendar grand slam from 2015-2016. would have been absolutely huge, and even Nadal re-taking the lead / moving past him again in the grand slam count wouldn’t have made up for that.

As someone who doesn’t like Djokovic and much prefers Nadal, I’m delighted that Medvedev stopped him last September, and then really messed up against Nadal in Melbourne earlier this year !

Its all very subjective as a judgement based on slams takes away so many other aspects ... for me Federer ans borg had a style / elegance that personally I always enjoyed more than their contemporaries.

Certainly valid arguments can be made for the big three if recent times and its going to be a long time before anybody else forces themselves into the debate

 

[Jev]

I think Nadal's way of playing is more aesthetically pleasing that he gets credit for. Maybe it's because it's always compared to Federer, who is by far the most watchable player of all time, or maybe it's because the young Nadal was more of a defensive runner. These days he has such a great allround game and a complete way of playing. He's so impressive to watch.