I guess Richard Gasquet is top 5 all time then
Greatest mens tennis player of all time
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
It's Goran Ivanisovic. Youse are all feckin idiots.
Yes because he is just as gifted as Roger Federer and John McEnroe. There is literally no difference.
Goes under the radar?! He's one of he most overhyped players to exist. He belongs in the group with Wawrinka, Hewitt etc.
He's done much better than them against the big 3 to be fair. But it did annoy me that he was knighted for winning a few grand slams.
Doesn't he have a way better win rate than Wawrinka and Hewitt?
Murray has a 75% career win rate. Wawrinka 62%. Murray is miles ahead of him.
If it's considering the best ever, i always think who would win in a Wimbledon final, if each player was at their absolute peak. I think Federer beats Novak, i just do. I also think Federer beats everyone else, with perhaps him and Bjorn being too close to call, but only cause they both won Wimbldeon 5 years in a row.
Win rates can be deceiving. Seem to recall Murray deliberately picking and choosing tournaments for the sake of ranking. Both him and the media were obsessed with the title as no. 1. He got a lot of favorable draws because of his seeding.
Roger. Federer. Made winning grand slams look almost effortless. The most gifted player to ever touch a racket.
I know he slows the game down when he wants to but any interviews I seen of him he seems like a good guy
Quaresma was more artistic than Cristiano doesn’t make him a better player though, you might prefer watching one or another player but bottom line is the achievements.
Because he is a gentleman, or comes across like one. He oozes class.
But it is Djokovic, and he will add a couple of Grand Slams on top of it, so i think he will win the debate. Statistically anyway.
Greatest is a subjective measure, and a lot of people won't agree, given how many variables there are and what people value the most. If it's raw success, then it'll be Djokovic, if it's influence on the sport, then it's Federer, etc. That's before you get into the problems with comparing across generations and how much the game has changed.
Surely if you're choosing a French player with a lot of flair who never really got close to a slam then it has to be Monfils. Gasquet is pretty smooth though.
Feels like Tennis needs a breakaway sport where they use old school racquets and faster balls so players would prioritise flair and invention over turning most matches into slogfests. I can't be the only one who misses serve and volley.
A) No Quaresma wasn't. Yes CR pared his game back but he was a flair player for several years. Not as gifted as a Messi or a Maradona but still very talented.
B) No it isn't. Winning is obviously very important but how you win will always matter. That's why Messi and Federer were writing love letters to each other a while back. Genius recognises genius.
The difference in achievements between Queresma/Ronaldo and Novak/Federer makes that comparison meaningless
I always likened Federer to the Zidane of tennis
Agree with this.
Probably just popularity and more of an iconic figure. The same applies to a lesser extent to Nadal too.
Novak could reach 27 and he won't be as popular as either of those two.
While I love tennis, looking back in history, I think it's pretty disgraceful that it only became fully 'open' from the late 70s or so. It was bad enough that the open era started as late as April 1968 with separate amateur (though they were paid money under the table) and professional tours for the men before then. But even during the early years of the open era things weren't fully 'open' yet with players being banned from entering certain grand slams based on their affiliaitions, for example Laver wasn't allowed to defend his Australian Open and RG titles in 1970 (though after winning the grand slam in 1969, his priority understandably switched to trying to earn as much prize money as possible before he retired), and Connors travelled to Paris but was banned from entering RG in 1974.
That makes it's difficult enough to compare players cross generations. And as grand slam counting only became a huge from the 90s onwards, I don't seen the point of comparing the big 3 with any players pre-Sampras.
But in terms of comparing the big 3 amongst themselves, I already think that Djokovic is already greater than Nadal as things stand, and if he wins today he'll move out of sight IMO unless Nadal can somehow put together an insanely dominant and legendary season at the age of 37/38 in 2024 before retiring. If Djokovic had won the 2021 US Open final against Medvedev to secure the calendar year grand slam and holy grail, I think he would have ended the debate vs. both Federer and Nadal there and then. Thankfully he didn't, but I think he can do that today. I hope Ruud somehow upsets the odds and beats him though.
That makes it's difficult enough to compare players cross generations. And as grand slam counting only became a huge from the 90s onwards, I don't seen the point of comparing the big 3 with any players pre-Sampras.
But in terms of comparing the big 3 amongst themselves, I already think that Djokovic is already greater than Nadal as things stand, and if he wins today he'll move out of sight IMO unless Nadal can somehow put together an insanely dominant and legendary season at the age of 37/38 in 2024 before retiring. If Djokovic had won the 2021 US Open final against Medvedev to secure the calendar year grand slam and holy grail, I think he would have ended the debate vs. both Federer and Nadal there and then. Thankfully he didn't, but I think he can do that today. I hope Ruud somehow upsets the odds and beats him though.
I've been a casual tennis fan since I was a kid in the 80's. Loved all the greats especially McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Agassi, Nadal.
Roger Federer all round is the best of the lot for me. He played with such artistry..Every stroke and movement seemed so effortless, Zinedine Zidane esque as someone already pointed out on here..
Loved watching him play.
Roger Federer all round is the best of the lot for me. He played with such artistry..Every stroke and movement seemed so effortless, Zinedine Zidane esque as someone already pointed out on here..
Loved watching him play.
No one will ever argue against that fact.
With the benefit of hindsight now, seeing what Djokovic has done the past year, how much more impressive does it make Medvedev's victory in the final look?
That's really unfair. He'd have won a lot more Slams in any era apart from the one he was born into. Hell, he'd have won a lot more even if 1 of the Big 3 didn't exist. If he had the Federer esque 4-5 years of no major competition, he'd probably have more Slams than Agassi so I think its rather unfair to criticize Murray.
Yup, Novak will never be the people's champion but that honestly doesn't matter because he really is the GOAT. His achievements are unparalleled and to do it while being up against both Nadal and Federer is unbelievable.
is this even a debate anymore?
Congrats to Novaxx for being the greatest Serb player since Slobodan Živojinović
The benefits of being vegan and avoiding needless vaccines are now abundantly clear.
The benefits of being vegan and avoiding needless vaccines are now abundantly clear.
For anyone who had any doubts, officially the GOAT now.
I find him really boring. I always find dominant players in sports a bit boring but he's at the extreme.
Have been for a while. I predicted a while back he would finish on 25, which may be a bit conservative given the other two of the big three are no longer around and his biggest competition are the likes of Alcaraz and Ruud.
Mens Tennis appears to be in low period right now just as it was about 23 years ago when Sampras and Aggasi were tailing off and the only good players remaining were the likes of Hewitt, Safin, and Kuerten. A player of Djokovic's calibre will even at 36, feast on such a situation.
If he's at the extreme of boredom, I don't want to know how you feel about Federer, Nadal and well most Tennis players. He's a raving lunatic, who's not hiding his lunacy like others who are either great at hiding it(unlike Tiger) or really are just boring as feck. Probably Jordan levels in terms of absurd personality while being a GOAT.
I mean as an athlete. Really dull to watch.
Yup he's been GOAT for a while but there's a section of people who wouldn't acknowledge it till he actually won the most titles.
And yep, men's tennis is at one of its lowest ebbs in a while which is why we quite desperately need Carlos to stand up and be counted vs Novak or else it's going to be a procession for the next year or so.
Massive daylight between Novak and the rest now. Literally not even worth having the argument anymore.
Is there any meaningful metric where Novak doesn't beat Federer and Nadal now? Slams, other tournies, match wins overall, head-to-head, consistency, clutch factor, injury record etc all seem to fall in Novak's favor. He even has 3 slams on his weakest surface now 
Not as fun to watch or as likeable as Federer and Nadal, but you can't argue against these numbers.
Not as fun to watch or as likeable as Federer and Nadal, but you can't argue against these numbers.
It may not be meaningful to you but I would say he is comfortably the least feckable.Is there any meaningful metric where Novak doesn't beat Federer and Nadal now? Slams, other tournies, match wins overall, head-to-head, consistency, clutch factor, injury record etc all seem to fall in Novak's favor. He even has 3 slams on his weakest surface now
Not as fun to watch or as likeable as Federer and Nadal, but you can't argue against these numbers.
If you read these threads, he loses goat credibility on the basis of “style” and uhh “artistry” and uhh “childhood memories” and “iconic-ism” and uhh “languid effortless strokes (of the racket of course)” and the classic “makes it look easy” metrics.Is there any meaningful metric where Novak doesn't beat Federer and Nadal now? Slams, other tournies, match wins overall, head-to-head, consistency, clutch factor, injury record etc all seem to fall in Novak's favor. He even has 3 slams on his weakest surface now
Not as fun to watch or as likeable as Federer and Nadal, but you can't argue against these numbers.
That’s already six convincing truth bombs dropped on the djokovic goat party. Need I go on?
I suppose the only one is the Olympics. Some might say it's not important but I think for Novak and most other players winning a gold medal is a massive achievement. Given it's every four years and he's only had the opportunity to compete at 4 events in his career so far, you can't put much weight on it anyway.Is there any meaningful metric where Novak doesn't beat Federer and Nadal now? Slams, other tournies, match wins overall, head-to-head, consistency, clutch factor, injury record etc all seem to fall in Novak's favor. He even has 3 slams on his weakest surface now
Not as fun to watch or as likeable as Federer and Nadal, but you can't argue against these numbers.
He will certainly fancy his chances next year to get a gold medal in singles though.
He's probably the freakiest out of them though!
Tennis is so classy that this is their way of saying "wanker".