The Greatest Tennis 🎾 Player of All Time?
- Thread starter cawoodsct
- Start date
While I understand that tennis is not the huge draw it was in the 80s, can someone explain to me why WNBA games are televised on network TV and major tennis tournaments are not? If I walked around Denver for an hour, I'd be hard pressed to find more than 5 people who know anything about or follow the WNBA. Surely, I could find more people who've heard of Fed, Rafa and Joker, not to mention a few others. I don't think there's any reason to televise the minor tournaments (I'd have to say the same for golf, too, but I digress) but, geez, how about the 4 majors on network? I think the AO was only on the tennis channel, not even ESPN, but I may be mistaken. I certainly remember Wimbledon, US Open and French being on TV growing up. Are the demographics for tennis that much different than golf (I would guess the numbers would be less, of course, but the age, affluence, etc. should be similar)?
Joker will end up with more GS. But, imo, at his peak, Federer was better except on clay where Rafa would only be challenged by Borg in his prime.
Joker will end up with more GS. But, imo, at his peak, Federer was better except on clay where Rafa would only be challenged by Borg in his prime.
Well 3 out of the 4 majors are played overseas... in the U.S you can catch it at 9 am or earlier in most cases.
What? Every single tennis major has dozens of hours of live coverage. The WNBA is on what, ESPN 11, with a paid subscription? Wake up. There were probably 40 matches televised live on ESPN and ESPN 2 from the Aussie.
I didn’t go back and read entire thread but I think that one named Anna was pretty good.
There’s no way of saying exactly who the GOAT is, but there’s no arguing the fact that there’s never been an era of tennis in which three players dominated the sport for this long. Nadal with 14 French Open titles is one of the craziest stats in all of sports history.
Nadal absolutely took Ruud's soul. And Rafa is his idol and Ruud trains at his academy. Talk about ruthless.
#metoo will get upset if they don't get their 5 minutes.
Tennis Channel Plus streams every single match from the French Open. ESPN+ streams every single match of the other three majors if not on ESPN/ESPN2.
Even with 14 at the worst of the majors for Nadal, Djokovic will end up with more and overall is the better & more rounded player. You (Nadal) can’t go over a decade without winning Wimbledon and the AO and be called the GOAT. Nadal’s title this year in Melbourne was criminal.
Even with 14 at the worst of the majors for Nadal, Djokovic will end up with more and overall is the better & more rounded player. You (Nadal) can’t go over a decade without winning Wimbledon and the AO and be called the GOAT. Nadal’s title this year in Melbourne was criminal.
It's very difficult to compare players across generations. This is especially true in sports where equipment has changes so much over the years, like tennis and golf. There have been several that a case could be made for. Laver, Connors, McEnroe, Borg, Federer, Nadal, etc. I'm not sold on anyone from 90s tennis as the greatest. The reason I say that is it was pretty much exclusively serve and volley. I'm not convinced some of those dominant players from that era had GOAT level ground strokes, but one could certainly debate that. Many points from that era went serve, return, volley. That was it. I also think that era hurt US tennis because men's tennis became so boring to watch that a lot of boys lost interest in the sport. One interesting thing about Connors is that he won the US Open on three different surfaces. He is the only player ever to do that. I know at one time he had also won more singles matches and titles than any other player. I don't know if those have been broken or not. At one time Federer was closing in on one or both of those. Connors always amazed me because of his racket. I played high school tennis and could have played small college tennis but didn't want to put in the time to do it. He played most of his career with a Wilson T-2000 racket. It was literally a piece of junk. I remember taking a few rackets from a shop to test them out before buying one. That thing rattled when you hit it, it had a horribly small sweet spot and twisted like crazy on off-center hits, it was just bad. How he accomplished what he did with that racket still blows my mind.
The T-2000 was the gold standard for a period of time when everyone else was using wood.
Djokovic will pass Rafa eventually. Rafa is absolutely the greatest clay court player ever. Federer has won 3 of the 4 majors at least 5x. What an era to have these three amazing players.
They're only a year apart, but I agree I think Djoker has more tread left on his tires.
My favorite player to watch, by far. Don't think he's the GOAT, but nobody was more tenacious, and he had a remarkable career. You're right about the equipment. I can't imagine how deadly that two-handed back-hand would have been with one of today's rackets.
Last edited:
Jimbo used modern (for the time) racquets at the end of his career in the late 80s and early 90s.
"Fire and Ice" (I think that's the title) Borg and McEnroe documentary is a good way to kill an hour.
I'll check it out.
I'm not, nor have ever been a tennis player. I mean, I've played (badly), but a tightly contested Major Final is as good as it gets with respect to sports viewing.
I'm not, nor have ever been a tennis player. I mean, I've played (badly), but a tightly contested Major Final is as good as it gets with respect to sports viewing.
Federer, though it would have been nice to see him play Sampras and Agassi in their primes. Still, Federer accomplished so much that it’s just about impossible to go with anyone else.
My 12yo son is a USTA ranked player, is pretty involved in spring/summer. There def is a thriving little enclave in KY….the true tennis crazy folks have already moved on the FL/SC and there is a level or two of kids above my son that are year rounders that sheeewwwweee can ball. He can hang with them in spurts but it’s eye opening.
Son’s first sport is football which makes it interesting, he’s the only one in the tennis community with that on his resume lols….which is a shame bc I think they are actually pretty complimentary, footwork etc…
It’s a beautiful sport and tough as hell to play….would love to see a resurgence in the US but folks’ interests are just so spread out anymore…
It may have been at one time although I never liked it as well as most wood rackets. I started playing around 1976 or so. The T-2000 had been around a while by then. I had a Wilson wood racket. I can’t remember the model. when I upgrade I tested the T-2000 because I liked Connors, the Donnay Borg Pro (wood racket), even though I hated Borg, and a new graphite racket that I can’t remember the brand. I hated the T-2000 and the graphite racket. The graphite racket was like hitting a tennis ball with a board. It had no feel whatsoever. The Donnay was easily the best all around racket between the three I tested. That’s the one bought. Later I bought the red Head Pro aluminum racket. By then the T-2000 was up to 4000 or 6000 or something like that. The Head racket was still much better in my opinion. I never liked the T-2000 as well as most wood rackets but I get why a really high level player like Connors might appreciate the additional power and be able to put up with the crappy touch and small sweet spot. Plus his was probably set up way better than what I knew to do to set mine up.
Dislike tennis fans who cheer misses. French Fans are the worst.
My dad had the Arthur Ashe Head Competition 2, which I believe may have been the first stick made of composite materials. The technological advances in the sport have been amazing.
I used the T2000 my senior year in HS (81) before switching to a Prince Pro. The T was great, imo, and could also withstand a helluva racquet toss.
Speaking of Jimmy....here is one of the most famous points ever....
Speaking of Jimmy....here is one of the most famous points ever....
I believe my comment was about NETWORK TV, not cable. The French finals were actually on NBC this weekend so there's that. But none of the preceding rounds were. The Tennis channel and all ESPN channels are not network/free channels, which was my point. I probably didn't state that clearly enough.
As to the original question, I would probably give the nod to Nadal. Sometimes he looks like a damn video game out there.
Hard to argue with Nadal...HOWEVER, does his complete dominance on clay/French Open lead some to discount some of his greatness? I mean, if Jack Nicklaus had won 12 Masters of his 18 total, would we view Jack differently? I mean, Nadal on clay is almost an automatic win, so do some discount his legacy just because he's all but unbeatable on clay and his record in other majors, while excellent, wouldn't put him in the GOAT discussion? Let's say Nadal had 'only' won 6 French titles like Borg - that would give him 14 major wins, which is HOF and unbelievable, but not any more a GOAT contender than many others at that same level.
Personally, I think many dismiss Borg and Laver too quickly. Laver was DOMINANT like almost none other and missed 5 years in his prime due to pros not being allowed to play in the majors. He'd won the calendar year GS the year before he was no longer able to play the majors (IIRC) and then again only another year or so AFTER being allowed to compete. Have to think he'd have won 5-10 of the 20 majors he missed in his prime, which puts him at/near 20, also.
Borg retired at 26, 27 with 11 majors. Never won the US Open (although he was darn close a few times) and only PLAYED the Aussie 1 time when he was 17 and first year on tour. If (and there's always a big IF with speculation), he'd played the Aussie every year like many of this generation's pros do AND he'd continued to compete until, let's say, age 32 (younger than the Big Three), he'd have played in another 35 majors or so. Have to think he would've won maybe 6-8 or more, which would have put him right at 20 like the others.
Nadal is a beast, though. Just invincible on clay. A top player of any era on other surfaces although, understandably, more mortal on grass and hard courts. Just as Fed had muted success at the French but was incredible on the other two, it's all but impossible for a player's style to mesh perfectly with all types of court compositions. Laver, in his prime, is probably the first one who comes to mind that came closest as his record in the majors is pretty evenly spread out (although I think both the Aussie and US Open may have been on grass like Wimbledon back then - at least the Aussie was, I'm pretty sure).
Laver was the Wilt Chamberlain of his time: people downplay his achievements due to the "lack" of competition... which is BS to me (those two dominated not because of lack of competition, but they were THAT GOOD).
Borg OTOH... he would have had to face Mac in his prime (and was already starting to lose to him consistently), Connors in his prime (still)... not sure he would have won as much as you think.
Yes, the US Open was on grass until 1974, then 2-3 years on clay (Har-tru) and then on hardcourts since I think 1979. Australian was on grass until I think 1989 or so. The Aussie was far and away the least important slam for years and many, many top names didn't play it until it became mandatory. There are quite a few One-slam Wonders who got their lone slam win at the Aussie Open. Mark Edmonson, Brian Teacher or Johan Kriek (x2) anyone?
Borg OTOH... he would have had to face Mac in his prime (and was already starting to lose to him consistently), Connors in his prime (still)... not sure he would have won as much as you think.
You may be right. Of course, Borg was still in his prime when he retired, also. Certainly, BB would have beaten both Mac and Connors on clay as neither of their games were ideal for that surface (although Connors beat Borg on clay in the US Open one time). IF (there's that word again) Borg had played the Aussie, I feel he would've won a few of those. Add in another 1-2 French and at least 1 US Open and I think he surely would've won at least 5+. But, it's all speculation.
It's odd that hardly any of the pros played the Aussie for a lot of years. Certainly hurt the players during those years as far as racking up GS titles. From what I found, it wasn't until 1993 that the tournament made a concerted effort to regain its status among the GS tournaments. For example, out of his 20 GS titles, NINE of the Joker's have been in Australia. What I didn't look up was the relative strength of the field in the AO vs the other GS. I'm guessing the French has a different field makeup than the others just due to the clay.
You may be right. Of course, Borg was still in his prime when he retired, also. Certainly, BB would have beaten both Mac and Connors on clay as neither of their games were ideal for that surface (although Connors beat Borg on clay in the US Open one time). IF (there's that word again) Borg had played the Aussie, I feel he would've won a few of those. Add in another 1-2 French and at least 1 US Open and I think he surely would've won at least 5+. But, it's all speculation.
It's odd that hardly any of the pros played the Aussie for a lot of years. Certainly hurt the players during those years as far as racking up GS titles. From what I found, it wasn't until 1993 that the tournament made a concerted effort to regain its status among the GS tournaments. For example, out of his 20 GS titles, NINE of the Joker's have been in Australia. What I didn't look up was the relative strength of the field in the AO vs the other GS. I'm guessing the French has a different field makeup than the others just due to the clay.
Rafael Nadal, gracious and brilliant, is the GOAT of tennis
If you held a final vote for greatest player of all time today, Rafael Nadal would have to be No. 1.
Like how the writer completely forget about Auger-Aliassime in the fourth round who had Nadal beat.
Lots of players have "had Nadal beat" until they didn't.
Similar threads
