Greatest mens tennis player of all time

[saivet]

Unless he’s overtaken him, Federer had ten comebacks from 2 sets down which was joint top of the criteria. Maybe Djokovic has more now, I’m not sure.

I don't think Djokovic has more than that but that stat is a bit misleading anyway as you would also need to factor in how often they have gone 2 sets behind in.

It's a bit similar to Nishikori having the best 5 set record, but this was largely down to him getting into 5 set matches he shouldn't be in, in the first place.

 

[Offsideagain]

Rod Laver.

 

[Raoul]

Rod Laver.

Beyond the calendar slams, what are the reasons why you think so ?

 

[Samid]

Is this even a debate anymore?

 

[Moby]

Aesthetics FC standing outside the door asking to be let in

 

[Raoul]

Is this even a debate anymore?

Depends where Djokovic finishes on slams

 

[SinNombre]

22

 

[Zen]

Poor Novak, Wimbledon 20 isn't held, where he dominates now, gets himself kicked out of a weakass US 20 field, someone blows his GOAT confirmation regardless of what anyone else does Calendar Slam in the US 22 (in straight sets with no tie breakers too!) and follows that up with his Aussis 22 shenanigans handing a clear opportunity to his one key rival even as an underdog still.... which in turn leads him to being exceptionally undercooked at the French, where Rafa was reasonably there for the taking again.

Rafa takes full advantage of this idiot allowing him back in.

Novak should be well clear. Like seriously so too. But he seems a lot fitter in general with his body not breaking down so much, so hard to write off this debate continuing, and I certainly ain't writing Nadal off for more either.

 

[syrian_scholes]

For me, Nadal will always be the GOAT no matter how many GS Novax wins from now on.

 

[Raoul]

Poor Novak, Wimbledon 20 isn't held, where he dominates now, gets himself kicked out of a weakass US 20 field, someone blows his GOAT confirmation regardless of what anyone else does Calendar Slam in the US 22 (in straight sets with no tie breakers too!) and follows that up with his Aussis 22 shenanigans handing a clear opportunity to his one key rival even as an underdog still.... which in turn leads him to being exceptionally undercooked at the French, where Rafa was reasonably there for the taking again.

Rafa takes full advantage of this idiot allowing him back in.

Novak should be well clear. Like seriously so too. But he seems a lot fitter in general with his body not breaking down so much, so hard to write off this debate continuing, and I certainly ain't writing Nadal off for more either.

Djokovic has a realistic shot at Wimbledon and the Open, so we may see a scenario where they are both tied on slams and are virtually even on head to heads.

 

[Skills]

Poor Novak, Wimbledon 20 isn't held, where he dominates now, gets himself kicked out of a weakass US 20 field, someone blows his GOAT confirmation regardless of what anyone else does Calendar Slam in the US 22 (in straight sets with no tie breakers too!) and follows that up with his Aussis 22 shenanigans handing a clear opportunity to his one key rival even as an underdog still.... which in turn leads him to being exceptionally undercooked at the French, where Rafa was reasonably there for the taking again.

Rafa takes full advantage of this idiot allowing him back in.

Novak should be well clear. Like seriously so too. But he seems a lot fitter in general with his body not breaking down so much, so hard to write off this debate continuing, and I certainly ain't writing Nadal off for more either.

Tbf if you look at the number of slams Rafa has missed over the years, he could've been further ahead by now. They're both unfortunate in different ways - ones a complete idiot and the other ones quite injury prone

 

[altodevil]

No tennis buff by any means - but I just don't see the logic in anointing Nadal as the best ever.

 

[SinNombre]

Djokovic has a realistic shot at Wimbledon and the Open, so we may see a scenario where they are both tied on slams and are virtually even on head to heads.

Novak is not the favourite at the US Open. Medvedev is better on HC now, and Alcaraz might be a genuine GS contender by then.

 

[P-Ro]

Andy Murray. Case closed.

 

[The Man Himself]

It's definitely not Federer. That much is clear.

 

[Avatar]

G.O.A.Ts is a media thing that is never accurate. I'd still put Federer above Rafa and Djokovic though. (P.S: I'm a Federer fan)

ROGER FEDERER IS AN ARTIST, RAFA NADAL AND NOVAK DJOKOVIC ARE MACHINES' - RONNIE O'SULLIVAN ON GOATS, AND MESSI

Ronnie O'Sullivan does not believe it is at all easy to play snooker the way he does and win titles, which makes it all the more remarkable that he has six World Championship crowns to his name. The snooker superstar used Lionel Messi in football and Roger Federer in tennis to make his point about legends of different sports having to produce while also entertaining fans with their brands of play.

https://www.eurosport.com/snooker/w...n-on-goat-and-lionel-m_sto8873970/story.shtml

As I said before, and in a nutshell :
1- You can't objectively compare different eras. I wonder how many GS would Rod Laver have won if GS were professional tennis in his early years.
2- G.O.A.Ts in a team sport is a bit ridiculous
3- The stats model should be way more complex incorporating many other numbers (trophies and else). e.g Nadal never won the ATP finals!!
4- Art. You can't capture Art with numbers. Not just that, Art trumps stats e.g. Maradona

 

[Kag]

I never particularly liked him or rooted for him, but there’s something greater about Federer than there is Nadal and Djokovic.

You could sit (and people love to do this) and pick apart the numbers: Slam wins, head to head records in finals, wins across different surfaces, Masters 1000s, wins against top ten players, weeks at #1. More convincing arguments for both Nadal and Djokovic, I’m sure. But that gut feeling remains: Federer did it with style, and that’s what people will remember in years to come.

 

[RedRonaldo]

In terms of most Grand Slam (best achievements) - Nadal
In terms of longest peak/total domination (highest peaks) - Federer
In terms of most weeks at no.1 (most consistent) - Djokovic

Am I doing this right?

 

[altodevil]

In terms of most Grand Slam (best achievements) - Nadal
In terms of longest peak/total domination (highest peaks) - Federer
In terms of most weeks at no.1 (most consistent) - Djokovic

Am I doing this right?

Highest peak Djokovic surely?

 

[Skills]

In terms of most Grand Slam - Nadal
In terms of highest peak/longest total domination - Federer
In terms of most weeks at no.1 - Djokovic

Am I doing this right?

Djokovic has had the greatest peak.

 

[RedRonaldo]

Highest peak Djokovic surely?

Djokovic has had the greatest peak.

Really? I thought Federer peak was better. He has managed to stay at no.1 and totally dominate the game from 04-08, in 237 consecutive weeks, which is by far the longest ever, winning 12 GS in 16 final within 4.5 years. Djokovic longest peak is only 122 weeks, he has Nadal, Federer etc breaking up his domination dozens of time throughout his best era.

 

[Skills]

Really? I thought Federer peak was better. He has managed to stay at no.1 and totally dominate the game from 04-08, in 237 consecutive weeks, which is by far the longest ever, winning 12 GS in 16 final within 4.5 years.

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.

 

[arnie_ni]

It's definitely not Federer. That much is clear.

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

 

[RedRonaldo]

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.

I don't know, probably you are right. But no one dominates tennis more than Federer during his era, although you could always argue it is a weak era. But from my memory, he simply plays at a level where I honestly think it is the best I've ever seen, regardless of his opponents.

He has won 42 titles from 04--07, which means in average he won 10.5 titles per year over this period, in average nearly a title won per month for 4 years of time, which is insane.

 

[SinNombre]

Federer’s era includes 2008+ where he got dominated.

Federer pretty much has no argument to GOAT outside of being the oldest of the three and getting to dominate the weak era after Sampras retired.

If only he had converted those 40-15s against Djokovic, he would have had GOAT sewn up by longevity.

 

[Moby]

Watching Federer fans coming up with new criteria each time this discussion comes up to keep their guy alive in the argument is always funny.

Whatever happens from here on out Federer isn't gonna get beyond third best.

 

[Kazi]

Face it guys, Federer bottled it many years ago

 

[Rado_N]

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.

I’m not particularly a tennis fan but watch it now and then, and that 2008 Wimbledon final was one of the best sporting events I’ve ever watched.

 

[The Hilton]

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.

 

[RedRonaldo]

Federer’s era includes 2008+ where he got dominated.

Federer pretty much has no argument to GOAT outside of being the oldest of the three and getting to dominate the weak era after Sampras retired.

If only he had converted those 40-15s against Djokovic, he would have had GOAT sewn up by longevity.

Well I wouldn't say its a "weak era" overall from 2004-2009, when we have young Nadal (GOAT) featuring most of it.

As you can see, Nadal was top 2 player in the world from 2005 onwards, while young Djokovic (GOAT) was top 3 player n 2007, young Murray (Big 4) was top 4 in 2008.

The only truly weak era was 2003-2004, where Federer has managed to win 4 GS and 18 titles overall.

2003 - Weak era, Roddick tops, Federer 2nd
2004 - Weak era, Federer dominates
2005 - Federer vs Nadal, Federer dominates, Nadal 2nd
2006 - Federer vs Nadal, Federer dominates, Nadal 2nd
2007 - Federer vs Nadal vs Djokovic, Federer dominates, Nadal 2nd, Djokovic 3rd
2008 - Federer vs Nadal vs Djokovic, Nadal tops, Federer 2nd, Djokovic 3rd
2009 - Federer vs Nadal vs Djokovic vs Murray, Federer tops, Nadal 2nd, Djokovic 3rd, Murray 4th

Ever since the weak era in from 2003-2004, Federer has managed to win another 16 GS and 81 career titles overall afterwards, against the likes of Nadal, Djokovic and Murray.

 

[Moby]

young Murray (Big 4)

Hang on right there. What's this big 4 business now?

 

[RedRonaldo]

Hang on right there. What's this big 4 business now?

Well at one point he was regarded as big 4, as he has won 3 GS and stays at no.1 for 41 weeks during toughest era in Tennis against the likes of Djokovic, Nadal and Federer. Surely he is nowhere near as good as the other 3, but still, he was quite good at one point.

 

[Skills]

Well I wouldn't say its a "weak era" overall from 2004-2009, when we have young Nadal (GOAT) featuring most of it.

As you can see, Nadal was top 2 player in the world from 2005 onwards, while young Djokovic (GOAT) was top 3 player n 2007, young Murray (Big 4) was top 4 in 2008.

The only truly weak era was 2003-2004, where Federer has managed to win 4 GS and 18 titles overall.

2003 - Weak era, Roddick tops, Federer 2nd
2004 - Weak era, Federer dominates
2005 - Federer vs Nadal, Federer dominates, Nadal 2nd
2006 - Federer vs Nadal, Federer dominates, Nadal 2nd
2007 - Federer vs Nadal vs Djokovic, Federer dominates, Nadal 2nd, Djokovic 3rd
2008 - Federer vs Nadal vs Djokovic, Nadal tops, Federer 2nd, Djokovic 3rd
2009 - Federer vs Nadal vs Djokovic vs Murray, Federer tops, Nadal 2nd, Djokovic 3rd, Murray 4th

Ever since the weak era in from 2003-2004, Federer has managed to win another 16 GS and 81 career titles overall afterwards, against the likes of Nadal, Djokovic and Murray.

Rafa was a protégée but he wasn't a factor back in 05-06 apart from the clay court season (and eventually Wimbledon). It's 2008 where he became an all-court threat - he hadn't reached a hard court grand slam semi final up until the 2008 Australian Open.

For reference Nadal in 2008 was only 22 years old - the same age Federer was when he won his first slam.

 

[Lay]

Federer is getting a bit of a raw deal here.

 

[RedRonaldo]

Rafa was a protégée but he wasn't a factor back in 05-06 apart from the clay court season (and eventually Wimbledon). It's 2008 where he became an all-court threat - he hadn't reached a hard court grand slam semi final up until the 2008 Australian Open.

For reference Nadal in 2008 was only 22 years old - the same age Federer was when he won his first slam.

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.

 

[Skills]

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.

Yeah Nadal was world number 1 at age 22 - but that was in 2008.

 

[RedRonaldo]

Yeah Nadal was world number 1 at age 22 - but that was in 2008.

Nadal was world no.2 at 2005. He won 11 titles in 2015 alone (8 clay, 3 hard), include a GS, which was also one of his career best year in terms no. of titles won.

Not quite "just a protégée" really.

 

[MyOnlySolskjaer]

It's Nadal and this version of him.

 

[Zen]

The 'weak era' stuff is always a bit odd. It's only weak, because Federer won.... had he not existed, not many would think that. Roddick won have a fair number of Slams - probably 6+, Hewitt likely a couple more, Safin okay maybe not he's a nutter, Nalbandian possible.

It's also not something you need to bash Federer for anymore, since well, he's got very few arguments over the two really, except an eye test preference for the game and well, yeah, longer higher peak, but that's a bit irrelevant.

If anything, right now, or at least, the past 5-7 years has been the 'weak era' - casually allowing 3 old men to shut them out. Federer played 4 non slam games last year, at 2-3 I think, and yet still casually made it to the fourth round of the French followed up by a Quarters run at the Wimbledon... Connor at least played a whole season before doing similar the US at 39, while it was also on hards, not Wimbledon and RG, historically tougher for older legs.

 

[Skills]

Nadal was world no.2 at 2005. He won 11 titles in 2015 alone (8 clay, 3 hard), include a GS, which was also one of his career best year in terms no. of titles won.

Not quite "just a protégée" really.

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.