What does that even mean
Greatest mens tennis player of all time
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
What does that even mean
Grand slam counting basically only became a big deal in the 90s when Sampras closed in Roy Emerson's record (which Rod Laver said he didn't even know existed for a long time afterwards) right? I gather than when Borg closed in on Emerson's record (accumulated during the professional-amateur split in tennis), he just didn't care about equalling / surpassing it, and there was very little media hype. It seemed like the Wimbledon title count individually (Borg equalling / surpassing Fred Perry's feat of 3 consecutive of Wimbledon titles look to be huge), Davis Cup exploits etc. were more important.
I guess it goes to show that even pre-big 3, comparing players like Sampras and Agassi with Borg and Connors is incredibly difficult, and the set-up of the sport, structures of the tour were not like for like at all. In fact they were drastically different.
Clearly the grand slams increasing their prize money relative to other tournaments must have increased the importance of slam counting. I read that Lendl earned the biggest monetary prize in tennis history at the time when he won his 3rd title at the Antwerp invitational tournament (so not even counted in his official records) in 4 years in 1985. The prize money for winning the 4 man Pepsi Grand Slam event in the late 70s / early 80s with Borg dominated, was greater than the combined prize money on offer for winning RG, Wimbledon and the US Open in those years.
I guess it goes to show that even pre-big 3, comparing players like Sampras and Agassi with Borg and Connors is incredibly difficult, and the set-up of the sport, structures of the tour were not like for like at all. In fact they were drastically different.
Clearly the grand slams increasing their prize money relative to other tournaments must have increased the importance of slam counting. I read that Lendl earned the biggest monetary prize in tennis history at the time when he won his 3rd title at the Antwerp invitational tournament (so not even counted in his official records) in 4 years in 1985. The prize money for winning the 4 man Pepsi Grand Slam event in the late 70s / early 80s with Borg dominated, was greater than the combined prize money on offer for winning RG, Wimbledon and the US Open in those years.
Federer by a country mile.
I was in this camp as well until recently, but it's gonna be a very hard case to argue for given that he will very likely end up with the least amount of GS wins of the three and will have won 12 of his 20 before 2008, when the other two were 20 and 21 years old or something like that. Negative record against both in grand slams and GS finals as well iirc.
Agreed. I don’t really have a msssive preference between the three of them, albeit Federer is the tennis player I’ve enjoyed watching most, but beyond the aesthetic, I don’t think he has much of a case, beyond longevity. In addition to what you mentioned respective head to heads, Djokovic winning all Slams at least twice and his record particularly in Masters 1000s, Federer’s inability to lay a glove on Nadal on clay, them beating him on his favoured surface.
I think, albeit this may not be true of @dal, that this GOAT debate, more often than not, just devolves into a discussion about which of the Big 3 they have a preference for.
When did the four Majors change to Slams?
We all know what the Grand Slam is and how it is achieved don't we?
The only person I thought had achieved the Grand Slam in the last 40 years is Graf and she grabbed an Olympic gold in the process. Now that is a unique record!
We all know what the Grand Slam is and how it is achieved don't we?
The only person I thought had achieved the Grand Slam in the last 40 years is Graf and she grabbed an Olympic gold in the process. Now that is a unique record!
Trophies are obviously an indicator and I understand they are hugely important but greatness is a bit more than that.
Like watching George Best play tennis, taking the piss while strolling through games.
He got the piss taken out of him more times when he faced Nadal or Djokovic.
Prefer Fed of the three but Nole is the goat/best.
Well, you know how people have an opinion and a preference? Well that's mine.
Djokovic is the most successful tennis player of all time. But Federer is the best actual tennis player.
Looks like Federer fans have moved from Aesthetics to Synonyms.
How is Federer better than Djokovic?
Bastian Schweinsteiger.
No one likes Djokovic.
we probably won't know the answer until Nadal and Djoko are done playing. I always thought Nole will be the one who will eventually have 2 or 3 more than Nadal, but it's actually the opposite now. one thing is certain, both of them are ahead of Federer - without any doubt.
Nor do I, but other than the subjective aesthetic superiority of Federer. I don't see how he has an argument over Nadal/Djokovic?
It is really Nadal/Djokovic for me, and Federer at 3. No matter how much Federer made some cream.
The best surface by a mile is grass too though and Federer is clear on that surface. Easily the most fun surface to play on as casual player.,
- Aesthetics
- Synonyms
- Most Fun surface to play
- ??
- Synonyms
- Most Fun surface to play
- ??
It is a spectator sport and most spectators would rather watch Federer.
Federer has to be the best, just an incredible athlete.
However, I'm not seeing too many mentions of Jimmy Connors, that guy was a serious tennis player. Probably number 2 for me, maybe because I used to love watching him when I was a kid but he won so much it's crazy.
1. Federer
2. Connors
3. Borg
4. Sampras
5. McEnroe
However, I'm not seeing too many mentions of Jimmy Connors, that guy was a serious tennis player. Probably number 2 for me, maybe because I used to love watching him when I was a kid but he won so much it's crazy.
1. Federer
2. Connors
3. Borg
4. Sampras
5. McEnroe
Doesnt make him better.
Best looking?
Best fake tears as well.
Second best player of this generation retires.
Andy Murray?
Art > Stats..........For reference, see Maradona
But I'm against GOATs. in general; besides that Art can't be captured in numbers, comparing different eras is faulty, and unfair to older generations, like Rod Laver for example.
But I'm against GOATs. in general; besides that Art can't be captured in numbers, comparing different eras is faulty, and unfair to older generations, like Rod Laver for example.
Fair comments
It's not art, it's a sport. There's actual winners and losers. And Rodger was often the loser when up against the other 2 candidates from his era.
The tennis debate is trickier than any sport I know. Each to their own I suppose, just happy I got to see 3 of the best players we may ever see again fight it out for so long.
Why is Maradona in the top two, heck the top 10 or 50 players of all time then? Maradona's significant wins include 1 world cup, two league titles with Napoli....and that's pretty much it.
..and Maradona was usually in the losing side against other stars of the 80's and early 90s
Because ones a team sport and the other ones individual? Most reasonable people understand that in a team sport, there is only so much influence an individual can have. So punishing Maradona for the collective failures of an organisation is just stupid.
Not to say it doesn't happen. Look at the LeBron James Vs Michael Jordan debate.
Federer will always be the greatest for me. The other might have figured out to be more effective, but Federer's shot making and all around versatility edge it for me.
Maybe greatest is too absolute. He's my favorite of the 3.
Maybe greatest is too absolute. He's my favorite of the 3.
Last edited:
WWE.
What is the guy in this meme really talking a out anyway.
He's back to being the GOAT for having the cajones to retire within a week of the Queen dying.
That's where I am as well. I guess it depends on the definition of "greatest". I feel that Tiger is 'greater' than Jack Nicklaus, too, even though he's behind in majors.