Its a bit of a controversial topic. They did change the composition of the grass in an attempt to slow down the game, but there's little evidence it actually did. What more than likely happened is a new set of players emerged who were more serve and volleyers than just simply big servers. The fact that Fed emerged during this period helped to propagate the idea that the courts were definitely slower, when in reality it was probably a combination of both factors. That said, the Fed era was really not that different from most of the 80s when the likes of McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, and Edberg were leading the way (Becker was the only big server who was successful during that era).
Greatest mens tennis player of all time
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Federer definitely started at Wimbledon doing serve and volley. I clearly remember a young Federer beating Sampras at Wimbledon and every point was 1-3 shots with each player charging to the net behind their serves. I recall that it took Nadal a while to find his feet on grass but it was still deemed a major achievement when he won it because people thought he was going to be another Spanish clay court specialist who wouldn't do much away from that surface. He came in just as things were changing re the surfaces, I think. He of course played baseline tennis whatever tournament he was at. I don't recall Novak playing a lot of serve and volley when he started but there are people who watched him a lot more than me back then who would know better.
This is interesting. I always thought it was accepted that the courts had slowed down since the turn of the century but your point is logical that it could be a combination of factors. The only thing I'd say is that if the courts have not appreciably slowed then I'm not sure why more people aren't trying serve and volley because you can get so many easy points with that approach on a fast court. Maybe training methods and taught techniques have changed to reflect the prevailing style of baseline play.
If you remove any sort of stylistic or personal preference from it, it seems obvious to me that it's Djokovic. He's ahead by almost any metric you care to mention. It just seems churlish not to acknowledge that at this stage.
I think Federer peaked higher than Djokovic
Hard to say as many either didn't play at the same time or at least didn't peak at the same time. Grand slam performance matters but perhaps shouldn't be the sole indicator.
And then there are players like Andy Murray who always had one or more of Nadal, Federer and Djokovic to compete with for the whole of his career. In another era he would have been world #1 for a long time and won lots of Grand Slams.
And then there are players like Andy Murray who always had one or more of Nadal, Federer and Djokovic to compete with for the whole of his career. In another era he would have been world #1 for a long time and won lots of Grand Slams.
Before I respond to you with proof that you are wrong, can you please explain what do you mean by "peak".
Interesting way to look at it. One observation I would perhaps ask for is in the last 20 years or so, if the speed hadn’t changed by much, which serve and volleyer made it to at least the final? You’d expect across that span to see a few make it through - were there any that made it deep?
Not sure where I stand but Federer and Djoko both benefitted from weak eras, I’d say Djoker era even weaker than Federers. Nadal won most of his in a strong era so had to win at a higher difficulty level.
Peak level, for me Nadal wins this - he was so difficult to beat in prime and had Federer number for the most part and even beat him on his favourite surface. Djokovic only really got better of him after his injuries came to the fore but still was more of an even head to head fight than Federer.
So not sure who wins this but leaning towards it is not Federer.
Peak level, for me Nadal wins this - he was so difficult to beat in prime and had Federer number for the most part and even beat him on his favourite surface. Djokovic only really got better of him after his injuries came to the fore but still was more of an even head to head fight than Federer.
So not sure who wins this but leaning towards it is not Federer.
Greg Rusedski for me.
Yes Federer serve volleyed behind most 1st serves (including nearly all of them in the final) when he won his first Wimbledon title in 2003. When he won his 4th Wimbledon title in 2006, I remember there was talk about how the 2 finalists on the women’s side Mauresmo and Henin came to the net more than him.
I think that the development of poly strings, making it easier for players for rally from the baseline for longer and keep the ball in, did more to kill serve volleying than changes to the surfaces.
There was talk in the 90s about Rafter being the last ‘elite’ serve volleyer to emerge, and even when there were more serve volleyers on the tour, an increasing number of junior players were joining academies like Nick Bollettieri’s, where they were learning to play as baseliners, as that was a much easier style to learn and develop at a young age. McEnroe was a far bigger star than Lendl was, but style wise Lendl was more revolutionary for the sport (though he did serve volley behind every 1st and 2nd serve at Wimbledon during the mid to late 80s).
When Sampras on the other hand was growing up and developing as a junior, 2 out of the 4 slams were on grass, so switching to a one handed backhand and becoming a serve volleyer (at least on faster surfaces - during much of his career he was a generally an all-court player overall) made sense.
Last edited:
No fan of tennis, but surely Djokovic gets beaten by Borg with old wooden racquets? How do folk even compare these eras?
the thing is, Djokovic was always much better on hard courts, having a 21-7 record against him there. that wasn't affected by injuries or age. they were already almost tied around 2011 when Djokovic won 7 in row against him, with 10 wins in 12 matches in 2009-12 period.
the last time Nadal won a match against Djokovic on that surface was back in 2013. since only one GS is played on clay and the rest are hard courts, the majority of masters are hard courts and tour finals is played on hard court, it was always going to be a problem for him in this race.
Agreed.
Djokovic and Nadal have played each other more times at RG (10 times) than at all of the other 3 slams combined (8 times).
Overall, they played each other more times on clay than on hard courts (both outdoors and indoors).
So I’d argue that the conditions of their h2h have been more favourable to Nadal than Djokovic overall.
Nadal battled injury since 21, so it was only inevitable that his H2H records would eventually take a hit especially on hard court.
I've never bought this, if Murray played before Federer he'd have been below Agassi and Sampras and so on. He was simply a 2-3 slam player. He started big matches too slowly and his mental game has always appeared apalling.
On the overall discussion, I always had Federer. For me Nadal's record leans too heavily on the French Open when it comes to slams. For Federer, Djokovic and Nadal, if you exclude their wins in their strongest slam they're left with 12, 13 and 8 respectively. His record in the French is to be commended and he is by a mile the greatest clay court player ever, but if someone wins 2/3 of his slams at one event on a specialist surface, it takes away from an overall claim in my opinion.
Maybe. Maybe not.
This doesn’t make sense though, as Sampras and Agassi didn’t have the consistency of the big 4. Agassi in particular had years where he wasn’t a relevant threat during his “peak” years. There was far more scope for another player to pick up multiple slams.
I’d only just have Agassi slightly above Murray in an all-time list. At the point Murray’s hip ended his career at the very top (when they both were c. 30), their comparative figures were:
Grand Slam Titles: A - 5; M - 3
Grand Slam Finals: A - 12; M - 11
Masters/Olympic Titles: A - 11; M - 17
Total Titles: A - 45; M - 45
Murray has never lost a slam final to anyone other than Djokovic or Federer. Agassi similarly struggled against the best of that era (he was 1-4 against Sampras in finals compared to Murray’s 2-5 against Novak) but, of course, only really had Sampras at that level, compared to Murray having to deal with all the big 3.
yup. Nadal going out early or simply skipping Wimbledon meant Djokovic would have fewer chances to beat him there and improve the record while it was the opposite on RG, as Nadal was always present and 100% ready to stop him.
funny thing about Agassi is how he's most successful at AO, grand slam he avoided for 8 years in row because he wanted his "holiday time". I think he wrote that in his book.
he also skipped Wimbledon for 3 years straight because he didn't want to wear white. if he was more serious in those years, I believe he would be much closer to Sampras in terms of total slams won.
he also skipped Wimbledon for 3 years straight because he didn't want to wear white. if he was more serious in those years, I believe he would be much closer to Sampras in terms of total slams won.
Ah the glory days of people skipping the Australia for any number of reasons, holiday time, money, politics and just downright not wanting to travel 20 hours to Australia in the 70's and 80's.... you can definitely add multiple slams on all of Borg, Connors, McEnroe if they took all slams as seriously as they do today and politics didn't prevent them entering some, and likely a chip or 2 on Sampras and Agassi too.
There was a point in the 90s where Agassi completely disappeared from Tennis and had to resort to playing obscure challenger circuit matches to get his ranking back up to a level where he could begin playing in bigger tournaments. The fact that he was able to get back to #1 is pretty amazing. Sort of a similar predicament to Djokovic's 1-2 year absence from the top a few years back.
Federer at his best would beat Djokovic at his best.
100% agree.
Sampras would have won a lot of slams during the era of the big 3 (there is no big 4). Or maybe not purely due to slower courts. But dial it back 10 years and he’d be a strong contender, maybe inching ahead of Nadal but behind the other two.
This is slightly off the main topic of the thread but my point was that he was less consistent in his own era, allowing more chances for other players to win. These are the number of slams in an 8 year peak where Sampras and Djokovic failed to make at least the SF:
Djokovic (10-16) - 4
Sampras (93-99) - 13 (7 off clay)
That’s a lot more slack for other players to pick up titles.
Sampras was an interesting case. He was the first play to really push this whole 'only grand slams matter' mentality (I think Lendl might have first coined that phrase near the latter stages of his career, before Sampras pushed it further), which I think has been damaging for the sport (people who want tennis to be successful and healthy should want there to be as much as interest in as many different tournaments as possible).
On occasions he flat out tanked (pocketing the appearance fee which was much greater than the cheque for winning the tournament and happily getting out of there), or at least didn't compete anywhere as hard as he could in smaller tournaments. Sometimes at Queen's, he would look like a solid top 50 player at best (he publicly said that he only cared about getting in a few matches there before Wimbledon) before he'd transform into a completely different player at Wimbledon (I read he his serve was only broken 4 times in his 7 Wimbledon finals, with 2 of those breaks during the 3rd set of his first final in 1993 when he became nervous as he closed in on victory).
Agassi also tanked a few times in smaller tournaments during the 90s. The big 3 have certainly been more far more professional in terms of competing hard in tournaments away from the slams. I did wonder earlier this year whether Djokovic should have competed so hard to win his Australian Open tournament tune-up event in Adelaide, when whether he won that title or not was going to be completely irrelevant to chances in Melbourne. Of course he got the job done decisively in Melbourne anyway.
I think it's reasonable to compare the big 3 with Sampras and Agassi, but not with players from eras before then.
On occasions he flat out tanked (pocketing the appearance fee which was much greater than the cheque for winning the tournament and happily getting out of there), or at least didn't compete anywhere as hard as he could in smaller tournaments. Sometimes at Queen's, he would look like a solid top 50 player at best (he publicly said that he only cared about getting in a few matches there before Wimbledon) before he'd transform into a completely different player at Wimbledon (I read he his serve was only broken 4 times in his 7 Wimbledon finals, with 2 of those breaks during the 3rd set of his first final in 1993 when he became nervous as he closed in on victory).
Agassi also tanked a few times in smaller tournaments during the 90s. The big 3 have certainly been more far more professional in terms of competing hard in tournaments away from the slams. I did wonder earlier this year whether Djokovic should have competed so hard to win his Australian Open tournament tune-up event in Adelaide, when whether he won that title or not was going to be completely irrelevant to chances in Melbourne. Of course he got the job done decisively in Melbourne anyway.
I think it's reasonable to compare the big 3 with Sampras and Agassi, but not with players from eras before then.
This is correct.
But all he'd had to do is beat 2-3 times at the French preventing him the Grand Slam, because we know Djokovics is winning that one... and Federers weaker mentality over that would just filter into their matches elsewhere. So how exactly are we judging this Peak vs Peak thing?
It's the top level a player could reach. I'd agree with Federer for that personally as his play for a couple of years was amazing. It's a shame there was 6 years in age between the two as they were never going to peak together. I do think Djokovic and Nadal kept Federer's level high and changed his game for the better though.
If you take age into account I think Federer's best performance was in the 2011 French Open semis - he beat a 24 year old Djokovic on course to beat the 42 consecutive victory record on a surface that didn't suit his early playstyle.
I do think they're both levels above though. I'd have Federer and Dyokovic a bit ahead of anyone else, including Nadal overall.
Novak Djokovic
Ahead of Fed on clay and hard courts, ahead of Rafa on grass and hard courts
Most Majors, most weeks at number 1, positive H2H, more complete player than both.
Sampras, Borg, Laver etc are behind those 3.
Ahead of Fed on clay and hard courts, ahead of Rafa on grass and hard courts
Most Majors, most weeks at number 1, positive H2H, more complete player than both.
Sampras, Borg, Laver etc are behind those 3.
Only on grass. Peak Djoker is ahead on hard courts and clay than peak Fed. Deal with it
Peak vs peak is very subjective. Looking at how Alcaraz played 3 rounds before Novak I was sure Novak might get destroyed. Effortless and pretty tennis can be destroyed, but consistent, precise and complete tennis almost cannot (unless you are peak Wawrinka).
For me to believe that Federer's peak was higher than Novak's, Federer needed to beat Novak in at least one AO (post 2008) and at least 1 Wimbledon final.
Now if Federer's peak was 2004 through 2007, then I got nothing. We can speculate what the match would be like until end of time.
Federer, Nadal and Djokovic all had very long careers. Longer than most tennis players. Nadal was injured the most and Federer the least. Plenty of sample size to decide with numbers who the goat is. If we are not going to use numbers and instead elegance, artistry, creativity and effortlessness then I have no problem calling Federer the GOAT.
For me to believe that Federer's peak was higher than Novak's, Federer needed to beat Novak in at least one AO (post 2008) and at least 1 Wimbledon final.
Now if Federer's peak was 2004 through 2007, then I got nothing. We can speculate what the match would be like until end of time.
Federer, Nadal and Djokovic all had very long careers. Longer than most tennis players. Nadal was injured the most and Federer the least. Plenty of sample size to decide with numbers who the goat is. If we are not going to use numbers and instead elegance, artistry, creativity and effortlessness then I have no problem calling Federer the GOAT.
it's funny how Federer was already "past his best" at 27-28, when Novak was beating him, and his peak was when he was around 24-25, when Nadal was beating him, even at Wimbledon. Fed's peak managed 5 wins in first 20 matches against Nadal. not really the strongest arguments for highest peak.
maybe Fed's peak requires Andy Roddick to be on the other side
maybe Fed's peak requires Andy Roddick to be on the other side
I agree, you cannot move the goalposts because the obvious GOAT does not suit your taste.it's funny how Federer was already "past his best" at 27-28, when Novak was beating him, and his peak was when he was around 24-25, when Nadal was beating him, even at Wimbledon. Fed's peak managed 5 wins in first 20 matches against Nadal. not really the strongest arguments for highest peak.
maybe Fed's peak requires Andy Roddick to be on the other side
Djokovic is the greatest of all time, but records are there to be broken.
Maybe Alcaraz gets 20+...
He's the new Lendl. A highly effective machine that no one likes.
Those matches were heavily slated towards clay.it's funny how Federer was already "past his best" at 27-28, when Novak was beating him, and his peak was when he was around 24-25, when Nadal was beating him, even at Wimbledon. Fed's peak managed 5 wins in first 20 matches against Nadal. not really the strongest arguments for highest peak.
maybe Fed's peak requires Andy Roddick to be on the other side
9 of those 20 matches were on hard courts or grass with Federer leading that H2H 5-4
Indeed, no one likes Eastern Europeans. Same with Seles on the women side when she started her career before being stabbed by a Steffi Graf fan.
You could easily label Nadal a machine as his points are actually more repetitive than Djoker's. As for popularity, not sure he cares about the Instagram followers really. Oh, and he can be the President of his country if he wants to.
Saying no one likes him is literally calling the whole of Serbia a banana republic.
So more than half were on clay? Thanks for the info.