Fritz is the highest ranked US player I think. No one really out there that I can see that looks to be a perennial top 5 player.
The Greatest Tennis 🎾 Player of All Time?
- Thread starter cawoodsct
- Start date
It certainly is a discussion. Federer's game is/was the most aesthetically pleasing. But he's not a clear GOAT
I think Nadal is but can understand Federer and Djokovic arguments. None of us thought we’d ever be here 13 years ago when Fed passed Pete. It was unimaginable someone or gasp two guys would catch him. It was a foregone conclusion for the longest time he’d forever be the goat. Well, the convo has certainly changed now and I’d say that’s very tough on Fed fans, to gradually see him be chased down when that seemed impossible.
Yes, there is a 5 year difference in their ages, but head to head, Nadal has proven, head to head, that he is the superior player to Federer.
Not saying I agree with him, but there are in fact several such arguments that can be made.
It might have been you on the previous page that pointed out that he has built a large part of his resume at one Major. I can sort of understand that angle, but I'm mainly going on my own eyeballs.
I agree, i think arguments can be made for all 3. I think Tiger is greater than Jack with less majors. That being said it is now just an argument, it is not just Fed is the greatest of all time like it was for years and we accept it. That simply doesnt work anymore.
I will say, I don't see anyone coming down the pipe that will be any threat whatsoever to the "Big 3's" legacy.
It's actually pretty simple.
Like so much on here, all you have to do is accept my word as gospel. And the Clown is telling you that Nadal is the GOAT in tennis, Tiger is the GOAT in golf, and ketchup has no f***ing business being on a hot dog.
I'm here to simplify your lives. I'm a giver.
Like so much on here, all you have to do is accept my word as gospel. And the Clown is telling you that Nadal is the GOAT in tennis, Tiger is the GOAT in golf, and ketchup has no f***ing business being on a hot dog.
I'm here to simplify your lives. I'm a giver.
Lets put it like this, even though it wont clear anything up.
If all three are the same age and in their prime, who wins the most of the next 10 years of majors. I think Nadal wins the most French Opens, but have to think Fed wins the most of the rest.
But when it's all said and done, the player with the most majors is the GOAT IMO.
If all three are the same age and in their prime, who wins the most of the next 10 years of majors. I think Nadal wins the most French Opens, but have to think Fed wins the most of the rest.
But when it's all said and done, the player with the most majors is the GOAT IMO.
I think..... in Grand Slams its Djokovic 11-6 over Federer and 4-1 over Federer in Grand Slam Finals. And Nadal is 10-4 in Grand Slams against Federer with a 6-3 edge in Grand Slam Finals.
I give Djokovic a 70% chance of actually passing Nadal all time. Nadal had a procedure done on his foot today, if he recovers well he may give Wimbledon a go. Djokovic probably wins Wimbledon with this weak field this year.
Nadal is likely to miss, Zverev likely to miss with an injury. Thats 4 of the top 10 players in the world.
Nadal went six years in a row recently not getting past the fourth round at Wimbledon. Zverev and Medvedev have never been to a QF there. Finally Djokovic catches a little break for once instead of Rafa.
Don't watch a lot of Tennis so was wondering why Kyrigios was screaming at his team. I thought they couldn't be coached during the match, or was he angry at the overall game plan?
-billion dollar talent...10 cent "head". Prolly the most naturally physically gifted pro...but he doesn't have "it". Think John Daley in golf.
Unfortunately and this is coming from a Federer fan.... Djokovic if he hasn't already has wrapped up the GOAT debate.
The only angle left is if you believe Djokovic loses points for being 5 years younger and not dominating the two until late in his career.
The only angle left is if you believe Djokovic loses points for being 5 years younger and not dominating the two until late in his career.
Dude. It’s over.
He’s not the goat. He got run down and past and his competitors have a better head to head.
Perhaps 5 yrs ago. Now...no...and it's not close. No argument otherwise.
What's really amazing is that, in the history of men's tennis, only 8 players have ever won more than 8 majors and 3 of them (Fed, Nadal, Joker) were all about the same era.
Joker did have a pretty easy tournament with so many of the top pros being absent. But, you can't take anything away from his legacy. He's got a really strong argument for GOAT (only player ever to win 7+ GS titles on 2 different surfaces - hard court (AO), grass (Wimbledon)).
If Federer quits 5 years ago, he might still be considered the GOAT. But, he's absorbed a lot of losses in the past few years and we humans tend to have recency bias so we forget just how good and dominant he was (except on clay) for many years. It's also worth remembering that he finished 2nd to Nadal at the French several years (3 years in a row, made the finals 4 of 5 years, winning once, losing to Nadal 4 times). So, other than being beaten by the GOAT clay-court player in his prime, Fed could easily have 3 or more GS titles.
Still believe Laver and Borg get overlooked too often in this discussion. Laver was not allowed to play 20 or so GS events while in the middle of his dominant prime (won the calendar GS the year before and another one just a year or so after the ban was lifted). Not hard to believe that he could've won 8 or more GS to bring his career total to 20 or more. Borg retired at 27 with 11 GS. If he played only 8 more years, how many more French and/or Wimbledon titles could he have won? And, he only played the AO one time when he was 17 (by contrast, Joker has won 9 AO titles). I believe he could've won close to 20 overall, also, if he'd continued to play and/or started playing the AO.
Tennis fans are spoiled with the Big 3 who, each, have been all-time greats and have played a large part of their careers against each other.
Joker did have a pretty easy tournament with so many of the top pros being absent. But, you can't take anything away from his legacy. He's got a really strong argument for GOAT (only player ever to win 7+ GS titles on 2 different surfaces - hard court (AO), grass (Wimbledon)).
If Federer quits 5 years ago, he might still be considered the GOAT. But, he's absorbed a lot of losses in the past few years and we humans tend to have recency bias so we forget just how good and dominant he was (except on clay) for many years. It's also worth remembering that he finished 2nd to Nadal at the French several years (3 years in a row, made the finals 4 of 5 years, winning once, losing to Nadal 4 times). So, other than being beaten by the GOAT clay-court player in his prime, Fed could easily have 3 or more GS titles.
Still believe Laver and Borg get overlooked too often in this discussion. Laver was not allowed to play 20 or so GS events while in the middle of his dominant prime (won the calendar GS the year before and another one just a year or so after the ban was lifted). Not hard to believe that he could've won 8 or more GS to bring his career total to 20 or more. Borg retired at 27 with 11 GS. If he played only 8 more years, how many more French and/or Wimbledon titles could he have won? And, he only played the AO one time when he was 17 (by contrast, Joker has won 9 AO titles). I believe he could've won close to 20 overall, also, if he'd continued to play and/or started playing the AO.
Tennis fans are spoiled with the Big 3 who, each, have been all-time greats and have played a large part of their careers against each other.
Federer out of ATP rankings for 1st time in 25 yrs
For the first time in a quarter century, men's tennis star Roger Federer is out of the ATP rankings; Novak Djokovic slides to No. 7 despite his win at Wimbledon.
Djokovic easily. Nadal too long of droughts on grass and only won his second AO because of the Aussie government. During both of their primes Djokovic has had streaks where he’s absolutely owned him. If it wasn’t for 2006-2009 when Novak was a pup it’d be embarrassing for Rafa.
If you tell me every player would be playing at 100% health and 100% of their capability, I’d pick Stan Wawrinka over Nadal.
If you tell me every player would be playing at 100% health and 100% of their capability, I’d pick Stan Wawrinka over Nadal.
If you look back Stan has only played Rafa five times when at the top of his game and in good health. Even the 2017 French final he was not. He’s 3-2 against him all-time when 100% healthy. When Stan is playing at the top of his game, his ceiling is higher than Nadal!
Borg was perfect for his era. He would not be the same if in his prime today. The technological advances in equipment would not “serve” his style.
Lendl was pretty dominant in the 80's. I remember McEnroe saying that there was a time no one could hit his serve. Borg is like the Larry Bird of tennis. Great for a time, but lacked longevity. Bird had injuries, but I think Borg just didn't want to play any more.
Similar threads
