Greatest mens tennis player of all time

[GuybrushThreepwood]

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

Yes I agree it's definitely not all about the grand slams. This ridiculous 'only grand slams matter' mentality in tennis (I think Sampras in the 90s really pushed it) has been very damaging for the sport IMO, as highlighted by the fact that numerous smaller ATP tour level events even before COVID were increasingly struggling to attract interest and fans.

In Djokovic's case had he beaten Medvedev last September, in addition to his various records / accomplishments at the grand slams (including 'the' grand slam which would be the holy grail IMO), he also would have had 5 YEC titles, the most masters series titles (and given how often the best players have faced each other in those events, they have to be a major factor as well - discounting masters series records makes zero sense), the record for the most weeks spent as world no. 1 year no. 1 and also the record for the most year end no. 1 finishes. So I might have considered at that stage whether he was actually separating himself from Nadal and Federer. But things have changed a lot during the past 9 months.

The 'GOAT race' in tennis has been all consuming, in some ways it is a bad thing as mainstream interest has been spread more thinly across so few players, When we go back to a situation where 'history' isn't on the line in nearly grand slam final like it has been in recent times, I wonder how that mainstream interest will hold up.

 

[Vernon Philander]

Federer has 46 Slam semi finals, compared to Nadal 35. Significant gap.

Also 0 World Tour Finals titles for Nadal.

His record is far too skewed to the clay of French, where the competition is always weaker than the Hard Courts.

22 is a great achievement, but I think it's misleading to just look at the headline figure. Djokovic has a better claim for the GOAT in my eyes.

 

[Dan_F]

It’s almost a bit of a pointless discussion until Djokovic is done. I’d be surprised if he didn’t end up clear of Nadal still, but you just never know when you get to that kind of age. I would never have guessed in 2017 that Serena wouldn’t go ahead in women’s slams.

 

[saivet]

Federer has 46 Slam semi finals, compared to Nadal 35. Significant gap.

Also 0 World Tour Finals titles for Nadal.

His record is far too skewed to the clay of French, where the competition is always weaker than the Hard Courts.

22 is a great achievement, but I think it's misleading to just look at the headline figure. Djokovic has a better claim for the GOAT in my eyes.

I'm not sure the first stat is all that relevant. You can then look at finals, Nadal has 30 and Federer has 31 which to me indicates Nadal has been better in those big matches. Nadal has also been in each final at least 5 times.

Federer has been in the main draw 81 times, the most of any player while Djokovic has been in 66 and Nadal has been in 64 times.

I think by the end of their careers Djokovic is still likely to have the biggest claim but if things were to end here then I think the case for Nadal is pretty strong.

 

[Vernon Philander]

I'm not sure the first stat is all that relevant. You can then look at finals, Nadal has 30 and Federer has 31 which to me indicates Nadal has been better in those big matches. Nadal has also been in each final at least 5 times.

Federer has been in the main draw 81 times, the most of any player while Djokovic has been in 66 and Nadal has been in 64 times.

I think by the end of their careers Djokovic is still likely to have the biggest claim but if things were to end here then I think the case for Nadal is pretty strong.

Nadal was always more prone to pulling out of tournaments, usually Wimbledon, to be fresh for ones he could win. It's his right, of course, but it somewhat preserves his H2H and loss records, whereas Djok and Fed were going deep in more slams.

 

[AjaxCunian]

Nadal was always more prone to pulling out of tournaments, usually Wimbledon, to be fresh for ones he could win. It's his right, of course, but it somewhat preserves his H2H and loss records, whereas Djok and Fed were going deep in more slams.

Nadal is also a lot more injury prone than both of them, he has had to manage his career more intentionally and seems to have done that better than both so far.

 

[christinaa]

Federer is the GOAT

 

[The Hilton]

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.

The widely accepted objective criteria is mostly slams. Your list comes a distant second, and you've left out weeks at number one, the actual time spent as the best tennis player in the world, where Nadal is down the list.

So no, Nadal isn't clear of Djokovic (and I say this as someone who can't stand the latter), who's got a much more rounded record in grand slams, and has been the world number one for loads longer. Another couple of none French Open slams, or the calendar slam this year, or more time at number 1, etc, would change that, but at the moment it boils down to his record being overwhelmingly clay heavy compared to the other 2 who have more diverse records.

 

[foolsgold]

Heart has always said Fed, but what Nadal has done this year is making me question this. Djokovic I've never warmed to, but his record can't be denied.

It's like the Ronaldo / Messi thing, we can have favourites but ultimately we should just consider ourselves blessed to live in a age of greatness. They're all fantastic.

 

[saivet]

Nadal was always more prone to pulling out of tournaments, usually Wimbledon, to be fresh for ones he could win. It's his right, of course, but it somewhat preserves his H2H and loss records, whereas Djok and Fed were going deep in more slams.

When has this happened? The only one I know he did for definite was USO 2020 and that was the Covid year when RG was a few weeks later.

Since he turned pro he's missed Wimbledon 4 times.

2004: Injured, didn't play RG that year either.
2009: Knee problems (won it the year before and went on to win it the year after)
2016: Withdrew from RG mid-tournament with a wrist injury
2021: Foot problem which kept him out for the rest of the season after RH.

 

[GuybrushThreepwood]

Obviously men's records and women's records are completely separate and shouldn't be compared (though I'm sort of going to do that below), as they are just different sports. For example if I say that Federer has the record for the most Wimbledon titles I don't expect someone to correct me and say that Navratilova won 1 more, and similarly if I say that Evert holds the record for the most titles at RG I don't expect someone to correct me and say that Nadal has won twice as many. I think in the context of men's and women's tennis, just saying 'player', without having to add the 'male' or 'female' context before, is perfectly fine (cough Murray).

But I find it an absolutely amazing that a male player has actually won the same number of grand slam titles as Steffi Graf (and while Graf was absolutely amazing I don't think it's unreasonable to say that her grand slam count would likely have been lower had Seles not been stabbed). The major records such as most grand slam titles, most titles, most weeks as world no. 1 etc. were traditionally much higher in women's tennis than men's, largely due to the much greater depth and competition in men's tennis. Borg and Connors often faced brutal competition just to get to grand slam semi-finals, while that was an absolute breeze for Navratilova and Evert in comparison.

The idea of male tennis players getting to 20 plus grand slam titles, like Court, Serena and Graf have done on the women's side, would previously (maybe even in the middle part of the last decade) have seemed utterly ridiculous. And I believe that Djokovic has spent almost the same number of weeks as world no. 1 as Graf (the record holder on the women's side) did.

 

[Skills]

Nadal was always more prone to pulling out of tournaments, usually Wimbledon, to be fresh for ones he could win. It's his right, of course, but it somewhat preserves his H2H and loss records, whereas Djok and Fed were going deep in more slams.

He was pulling out of Wimbledon to be fresh for the clay court season

 

[rimaldo]

He was pulling out of Wimbledon to be fresh for the clay court season

nadal famously uses a body double at the majority of tournaments outside ones he thinks he can win. that’s why his atp record isn’t as strong. embarrassingly for the other pros, ranjit nadalasapeemapetilon has managed to win 2 us opens disguised as nadal, having never actually played a game of tennis before the year 2012.

 

[Skills]

Feds best claim to greatness is actually that he was the first to do it.

He brought a lot of people into tennis who might never have watched if it wasn't for him. He started the wave, and his rivalry with Nadal took it up another level. Ever since then, I think everyone else has just been riding the wave (no offence to Djokovic - I don't think he's got the same appeal)

 

[Vernon Philander]

He was pulling out of Wimbledon to be fresh for the clay court season

Reducing the number of matches you play in the season, keeps you fresher for the ones you do play in. No one mentioned Clay specifically.

He's not managed to go deep in as many Slams as the other two, largely down to him not appearing as much. He's picked and chosen smartly, on evidence.

 

[saivet]

Reducing the number of matches you play in the season, keeps you fresher for the ones you do play in. No one mentioned Clay specifically.

He's not managed to go deep in as many Slams as the other two, largely down to him not appearing as much. He's picked and chosen smartly, on evidence.

You've mentioned this again but he hasn't really picked and chosen. If you're talking ATP events then the same applies to Djokovic and Federer too. Djokovic often doesn't play a warm up event before Wimbledon like Nadal in recent years. Nadal tends to play in Canada before the US Open but Federer and Djokovic opted to play Cincinnati instead. As they've got older, they have all been selective in their tournaments, it's not a Nadal specific thing.

 

[MattofManchester]

largely down to him not appearing as much.

Largely down to injury, not choice.

Why would any pro player, or is Nadal the only one you're applying this to, purposefully choose to withdraw or tank Grand Slam matches so that he can play in another tournament? Especially one whose tenacity, determination and desire to win are of the highest levels.

 

[Raoul]

Federer has 46 Slam semi finals, compared to Nadal 35. Significant gap.

Also 0 World Tour Finals titles for Nadal.

His record is far too skewed to the clay of French, where the competition is always weaker than the Hard Courts.

22 is a great achievement, but I think it's misleading to just look at the headline figure. Djokovic has a better claim for the GOAT in my eyes.

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.

 

[Raoul]

It’s almost a bit of a pointless discussion until Djokovic is done. I’d be surprised if he didn’t end up clear of Nadal still, but you just never know when you get to that kind of age. I would never have guessed in 2017 that Serena wouldn’t go ahead in women’s slams.

True. He would probably be on 21 now if he manned up and got vaxxed before the Aussie.

 

[2mufc0]

Nadal is just borrowing the record from Novak. He's lucky Novak is such an idiot.

 

[GuybrushThreepwood]

I actually thought that Djokovic’s ‘wastefulness’ from 2012-2014 when he was in his prime and insanely consistent, but lost in 5 grand slam finals, the titanic RG semi-final against Nadal in 2013 which was really a de-facto final and his US Open semi-final in 2014 against Nishikori when he was the heavy favourite, would prevent him from challenging / potentially equalling / potentially surpassing Nadal or Federer. In many ways his 2014 Wimbledon final win against Federer was huge in terms of him becoming one of the greatest and in contention to be the greatest. Yet another defeat in a grand slam final would have been a very bitter pill to swallow.

Also nowadays a male player winning their first grand slam title before turning 25 would be a big deal, but in those days it felt like his 2nd grand slam title at Melbourne in 2011 when he was about 23 years and 8 months old, came relatively late.

 

[Yagami]

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.

Fair enough but I disagree. People will only look at their overall slam record. If they all retired right now that's what people would look at. It'll only come down to the intricacies of their career achievements if they're level like before this years AO.

You may have a point if like 20 of his 22 were from Roland Garros, but that's not the case. 8 spread out between the other three is good enough to negate that critique of his.

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.

I am counting two. Both hard courts, both count. If the roles were reversed and there were two slams on grass or clay, it'd be the same for the other two. If that were the case, Nadal and Federer would both be around or even above 30 slams themselves.

 

[Raoul]

Fair enough but I disagree. People will only look at their overall slam record. If they all retired right now that's what people would look at. It'll only come down to the intricacies of their career achievements if they're level like before this years AO.

You may have a point if like 20 of his 22 were from Roland Garros, but that's not the case. 8 spread out between the other three is good enough to negate that critique of his.

I am counting two. Both hard courts, both count. If the roles were reversed and there were two slams on grass or clay, it'd be the same for the other two. If that were the case, Nadal and Federer would both be around or even above 30 slams themselves.

100%. Slams are quite comfortably the most important talking point in most goat debates and it would be very hard to convince someone that a player who finished his career with several less slams than the leader was the goat. Other factors matter as well of course.

 

[The Hilton]

Fair enough but I disagree. People will only look at their overall slam record. If they all retired right now that's what people would look at. It'll only come down to the intricacies of their career achievements if they're level like before this years AO.

You may have a point if like 20 of his 22 were from Roland Garros, but that's not the case. 8 spread out between the other three is good enough to negate that critique of his.

If by "people" you mean "Yagami from Redcafe" then you're right, otherwise this thread is proof that plenty of folks will look at more than just the grand slam number.

Nadal has won 1 grand slam more times than Federer, his bread and butter French Open. He's tied with Djokovic at 2, so it's less of an issue there (but also doesn't put him ahead).

For Nadal to differentiate himself from the pack, he needs more time at number 1 (he's currently 6th in the all time list, way behind the other 2), and to win a couple more slams that aren't the French Open (ideally the US open to go ahead of Federer there).

 

[Doracle]

Fair enough but I disagree. People will only look at their overall slam record. If they all retired right now that's what people would look at. It'll only come down to the intricacies of their career achievements if they're level like before this years AO.

You may have a point if like 20 of his 22 were from Roland Garros, but that's not the case. 8 spread out between the other three is good enough to negate that critique of his.

I am counting two. Both hard courts, both count. If the roles were reversed and there were two slams on grass or clay, it'd be the same for the other two. If that were the case, Nadal and Federer would both be around or even above 30 slams themselves.

If we assume the same proportions as they each hold currently on each surface but move it so it’s either two clay or two grass, then they change as follows:

2 x Clay

Nadal - 33
Federer - 16
Novak - 16

2 x Grass

Nadal - 21
Federer - 23
Novak - 20

Obviously Nadal moves well clear with clay x 2 but there isn’t a huge swing for the others, especially if Novak does win Wimbledon again this year. This also ignores the fact Novak is far stronger in his career at Australia and Wimbledon than he is at the US, so it would really depend which hard court event we removed.

 

[saivet]

If by "people" you mean "Yagami from Redcafe" then you're right, otherwise this thread is proof that plenty of folks will look at more than just the grand slam number.

Nadal has won 1 grand slam more times than Federer, his bread and butter French Open. He's tied with Djokovic at 2, so it's less of an issue there (but also doesn't put him ahead).

For Nadal to differentiate himself from the pack, he needs more time at number 1 (he's currently 6th in the all time list, way behind the other 2), and to win a couple more slams that aren't the French Open (ideally the US open to go ahead of Federer there).

Even the no.1 ranking you could look at it from a year end perspective rather than weeks at no.1. Djokovic has 7 years where he was year end no.1, with Nadal and Federer tied at 5. If Nadal's treatment works, he's got a great chance of making it no.6 this year.

 

[RedRonaldo]

If we assume the same proportions as they each hold currently on each surface but move it so it’s either two clay or two grass, then they change as follows:

2 x Clay

Nadal - 33
Federer - 16
Novak - 16

2 x Grass

Nadal - 21
Federer - 23
Novak - 20

Obviously Nadal moves well clear with clay x 2 but there isn’t a huge swing for the others, especially if Novak does win Wimbledon again this year. This also ignores the fact Novak is far stronger in his career at Australia and Wimbledon than he is at the US, so it would really depend which hard court event we removed.

Its funny to learn that prior to 1987, Australian Open was actually play in grass. And prior to 1974, US open was played in grass too. So prior to 1974, the Grand Slam would consist of 3 courts in grass, and 1 court in clay.

That would probably make Federer GOAT I guess, if they all played in the past era instead.

Federer - 24
Nadal - 20
Novak - 20

 

[The Hilton]

Even the no.1 ranking you could look at it from a year end perspective rather than weeks at no.1. Djokovic has 7 years where he was year end no.1, with Nadal and Federer tied at 5. If Nadal's treatment works, he's got a great chance of making it no.6 this year.

That's a pretty arbitrary way of looking at it, given that it picks one week out of every 52 that someone could be number 1. Why don't we just look at it from the "weeks number one while named Rafael" perspective and then Nadal can win easily.

 

[saivet]

That's a pretty arbitrary way of looking at it, given that it picks one week out of every 52 that someone could be number 1. Why don't we just look at it from the "weeks number one while named Rafael" perspective and then Nadal can win easily.

The year end no.1 shows who was the best player in the rankings over an entire season. Another record, like at weeks at no.1 which Djokovic is proud to be at the top of. It's hardly a made up accolade.

 

[arnie_ni]

Even the no.1 ranking you could look at it from a year end perspective rather than weeks at no.1. Djokovic has 7 years where he was year end no.1, with Nadal and Federer tied at 5. If Nadal's treatment works, he's got a great chance of making it no.6 this year.

Why pick that date? Why boy 6 June?
Or maybe 31st September?

An arbitrary date is pointless.

 

[arnie_ni]

The year end no.1 shows who was the best player in the rankings over an entire season. Another record, like at weeks at no.1 which Djokovic is proud to be at the top of. It's hardly a made up accolade.

It shows who was the best as at 31st December does it not?

 

[Gandalf]

Wawrinka and Murray were competitive in 2015-17

Murray was also very competitive in 2012-2013 after a couple of years of knocking on the door, he was finalist at Wimbledon followed by Olympic Gold, US Open title, Finalist in Australia, missed RG with injury and then won Wimbledon. the RG absence was due to back issues which post the Wimbledon win saw him undergo surgery and lose ground for a couple of years before that 2015-2017 spell when he got to number 1 before his hip imploded. Whilst he would undoubtedly been 4th of 4 I do think that if his body had not let him down so much he would have somewhere between 6 and 10 major titles rather than just 3 and based on the periods in question it is Novak who profited most because Murray was his main rival during periods when Nadal and Fed looked to be fading.

 

[KirkDuyt]

Loathe as I am to say it, I think Djokovic is a better allround player than Nadal. Nadal is just so absurdly good on clay he took the overall slam record on Roland Garros alone (mostly).

Federer is 3rd for me. He dominated until Nadal and Djokovic burst into the scene and never found a way to beat them consistently at their peaks.

I really wish a new generation would finally really stand up and oush these grandads into retirement though. Still hoping it's Medvedev, I like him.

 

[saivet]

Why pick that date? Why boy 6 June?
Or maybe 31st September?

An arbitrary date is pointless.

Because it take into account an entire calendar season. Player X has accrued the most points across a season. So Djokovic has been the best player across 7 seasons. It's a big accomplishment and something I'm sure Andy Murray values more than just going no.1 for a couple of months between February and March. It just proves you have been the best player in a calendar year which I think is a big achievement to celebrate.

It's not to say that weeks at no.1 isn't something to consider but year end no.1 is also another metric that brings some further context and mainly highlights a great record for Djokovic.

It's also a big reason why Djokovic potentially winning the calendar slam last year would have been huge and a bigger achievement despite him holding all majors after RG 2016, which is incredible in itself.

It shows who was the best as at 31st December does it not?

Effectively yes, though given December is the off season, it's typically presented or achieved at the ATP finals.

 

[Raoul]

Even the no.1 ranking you could look at it from a year end perspective rather than weeks at no.1. Djokovic has 7 years where he was year end no.1, with Nadal and Federer tied at 5. If Nadal's treatment works, he's got a great chance of making it no.6 this year.

I wouldn't put much stock in using rankings to factor into the goat debate either. I remember years ago (late 90s) when random clay court specialists who spent most of their time on the European clay circuit, would magically appear at #1 (or in the top 3), despite the fact that tennis audiences barely knew much about them. Show me the overall slam count, masters victories, and if needed the H2H comparisons. Also, the likes of Lendl and Sampras were #1 far longer than Rafa, and nobody in their right mind thinks they are better than Nadal.

 

[The Hilton]

The year end no.1 shows who was the best player in the rankings over an entire season. Another record, like at weeks at no.1 which Djokovic is proud to be at the top of. It's hardly a made up accolade.

It's not that at all, it's who's ranked number 1 in the week that that the year ends. Nice to have, but doesn't really measure anything.

Weeks at number one is a far better barometer of time at the top of the game.

 

[saivet]

It's not that at all, it's who's ranked number 1 in the week that that the year ends. Nice to have, but doesn't really measure anything.

Weeks at number one is a far better barometer of time at the top of the game.

And ranking points at end of the year will be all of the accumulated points from the past 12 months (covid years aside) hence calendar year. It's not the be all and end all but still a recognised stat and why players have and still will see being the year end no.1 as a big achievement.

Personally I think there are more meaningful stats than ranking related ones (Masters, ATP finals, Olympics and even Davis Cup) but year end no.1 is just another one of many stats that can be plucked out.

 

[The Hilton]

And ranking points at end of the year will be all of the accumulated points from the past 12 months (covid years aside) hence calendar year. It's not the be all and end all but still a recognised stat and why players have and still will see being the year end no.1 as a big achievement.

Personally I think there are more meaningful stats than ranking related ones (Masters, ATP finals, Olympics and even Davis Cup) but year end no.1 is just another one of many stats that can be plucked out.

You're right that there's loads of stats that can be picked out, and you can make a good argument for each of the big 3 using them. That's why I'm saying there's no clear cut winner in this debate - it's about what stats you value most (or in most cases in this thread, who you like the most and picking the stats based on that).

 

[Giggs' right foot]

Federer has 46 Slam semi finals, compared to Nadal 35. Significant gap.

Also 0 World Tour Finals titles for Nadal.

His record is far too skewed to the clay of French, where the competition is always weaker than the Hard Courts.

22 is a great achievement, but I think it's misleading to just look at the headline figure. Djokovic has a better claim for the GOAT in my eyes.

1. Nadal is the only one of the three to have won the Olympics. Surely that counts for something?

2. And how is it Nadal's fault that the competition can't/couldn't keep up with his level on clay - Djokovic is by far the best on hard court and in that regards he's got the advantage of 2/4 of the slams being played on that surface.

12 out of Djokovic's 20 slams has been on his preferred hard court. That's 60%.
14 out of Nadal's 22 slams has been on his preferred clay. That's 63%.

Hardly that different, is it?

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

1. Nadal is the only one of the three to have won the Olympics. Surely that counts for something?

2. And how is it Nadal's fault that the competition can't/couldn't keep up with his level on clay - Djokovic is by far the best on hard court and in that regards he's got the advantage of 2/4 of the slams being played on that surface.

12 out of Djokovic's 20 slams has been on his preferred hard court. That's 60%.
14 out of Nadal's 22 slams has been on his preferred clay. That's 63%.

Hardly that different, is it?

Djokovic has a winning record against the other three. He's the best player of all time.

Federer is the greatest player however.