The Greatest Tennis 🎾 Player of All Time?
- Thread starter cawoodsct
- Start date
Joker probably is the GOAT. He's won on a lot of different surfaces against a lot of great players. Would he beat prime Fed, Rafa, Sampras, Laver, et al? No way to know and, certainly if you go back too far, the eras are too difficult to compare.
My favorites were Borg and McEnroe. They were so different and had some epic matches in the 80's. Jimmy Conners was fun too because he was so intense. Lendel and Sampras were better but seemed so boring in comparison. People would tune into McEnroe just to see him melt down.
My last/only tennis game was in the 70s. My best friend and I played on a condo court. I'd never played the game except for the afternoon my girl friend of the moment tried to get a game out of me. (She's been on her tennis team in HS.) I was so bad we quit after 15 minutes. Anyway, back to the condo, we were already physically middle aged and we huffed and puffed around and it turned out that both of us felt we were letting the other score points.
My favorite tennis game was in the movie Strangers on a Train.
Joker still has quite a few more left in him I'd say.... if not the consenus GOAT already it won't be much longer.
Still think he caught a little bit of the back end of Fed and Nadal primes and now will enjoy the back end of his career with no challengers.
But alas it is what it is.
Still think he caught a little bit of the back end of Fed and Nadal primes and now will enjoy the back end of his career with no challengers.
But alas it is what it is.
Nadal knees cost him a lot of his prime IMO... but I'm a Federer fan so I'm usually talking in his language lol
Of course, Novakova Djokovicnaya could probably win women's singles titles for the next 25 years. All it would take is a lawyer and a piece of paper.
Federer has 8 Wimbledon titles. Sampras and Djokovic each have 7. Djokovic could catch Federer in another month.
Maybe.........with the Big 3/4 fading away (and Djok might have another few years) ....no one else could shine....not that there was really any American player over the last 20 years who would have done it even if the Big 3 hadn't existed
I just wonder if any exceptional young athletes even take UP tennis anymore this country. Seems like it faded away long ago.
Probably not many, tennis is way down the list.
Don't see many elite serve and volleyers on the circuit anymore, which is a style that can take advantage of athleticism, but with the speed of the game not sure if you can do it exclusively and still be a top 5 tennis player.
So then rigorous training is necessary, but going back to the first point, the best athletes aren't playing tennis. I'm in my 40's....I hope I get to see one more great American player in my lifetime.
Don't see many elite serve and volleyers on the circuit anymore, which is a style that can take advantage of athleticism, but with the speed of the game not sure if you can do it exclusively and still be a top 5 tennis player.
So then rigorous training is necessary, but going back to the first point, the best athletes aren't playing tennis. I'm in my 40's....I hope I get to see one more great American player in my lifetime.
What's odd is that on both the men's and women's side, a player who comes to the net wins about 2/3 of the points. Statistically, it's a great strategy but the machine that churns out young tennis players is all about playing from the baseline. It seems obvious that it's easier to finish a point 2 feet from the net vs 3 feet behind the baseline, but very few of the elites ever try to serve and volley.
I just want to continue to see great tennis.... Once the Big 3 is officially gone it's going to be interesting who steps up.
Honestly don't care what nationality but I guess it would be cool if a USA guy was on top
Honestly don't care what nationality but I guess it would be cool if a USA guy was on top
Ship is long gone. American men's tennis has done nothing since Sampras, IMO.
Personally, I think Rafa, Roger, and Novak are co-GOATS.
While Novak is clearly going to end up with the most grand slams (will probably win 2-4 more), it speaks exponentially more to his longevity/lack of injury than it does being a better player than Rafa/Roger. And I don't want that to sound like a criticism of Novak either. His ability to avoid injury and still be dominating at this stage in his career is amazing.
At the same time, this younger generation of players leaves a lot to be desired. His greatest competition on clay (Alcaraz) couldn't even physically last more than two sets. Nobody is a threat on grass at all. Like not one player in the current ATP is a threat to a 36 yr old player (hence why major #24 is right around the corner).
So while Novak will most likely keep on racking up majors, I don't think it distinguishes him from Rafa/Roger.
While Novak is clearly going to end up with the most grand slams (will probably win 2-4 more), it speaks exponentially more to his longevity/lack of injury than it does being a better player than Rafa/Roger. And I don't want that to sound like a criticism of Novak either. His ability to avoid injury and still be dominating at this stage in his career is amazing.
At the same time, this younger generation of players leaves a lot to be desired. His greatest competition on clay (Alcaraz) couldn't even physically last more than two sets. Nobody is a threat on grass at all. Like not one player in the current ATP is a threat to a 36 yr old player (hence why major #24 is right around the corner).
So while Novak will most likely keep on racking up majors, I don't think it distinguishes him from Rafa/Roger.
Seems like an easy thing to assess. Just look at # titles, title %, major's, major %, and then the subjective how GOOD and DEEP was his/her competition.
I mean golf and tennis seem like the easiest to assess, much more than for any of the team sports, where you can specialize in a certain area more than others do. For example in football how do you compare the best QB to the best Linebacker, or baseball the best Pitcher to the best SS. Even with basketball or hockey where everyone does everything, some guys are more focused on scoring, and others on rebounds or assists or defense.
I don't watch tennis, but even I know in women's it is Serena, and then everyone else. I think that's right?
In Men's it looks like from this thread there is not agreement. So what are the key stats for those guys (# titles, title %, major's, major %, and then the subjective how GOOD and DEEP was his competition)?
I mean golf and tennis seem like the easiest to assess, much more than for any of the team sports, where you can specialize in a certain area more than others do. For example in football how do you compare the best QB to the best Linebacker, or baseball the best Pitcher to the best SS. Even with basketball or hockey where everyone does everything, some guys are more focused on scoring, and others on rebounds or assists or defense.
I don't watch tennis, but even I know in women's it is Serena, and then everyone else. I think that's right?
In Men's it looks like from this thread there is not agreement. So what are the key stats for those guys (# titles, title %, major's, major %, and then the subjective how GOOD and DEEP was his competition)?
Yeah, I think you kind of hit the nail on the head, when referencing how good and deep the competition is, which is what makes assessing who is the GOAT so challenging. Right now, mens tennis sucks. Literally a 36 year old Novak Djokovic just dominated the French Open (doing so on his worst surface, clay) and only lost one set in the process. He is dominating a bunch of 20-25 year olds who are in their tennis "prime."
Barring injury, he will go onto win Wimbledon next, as none of these guys can play on grass, either.
In my estimation, he will continue to rack up major titles as long as has the drive to continue playing, because he has no real competition. So while he will end up blowing Rafa and Roger out of the water when it comes to major titles, the final total will definitely feel inflated to me.
When Federer was 36 (same age as Novak now), he had to play against Rafa and Novak who were 30 and playing phenomenal.
Who is Novak playing against now at the age of 36? A bunch of mental midgets, to be honest.
Err wasn’t a significant portion of his career overlapping with the primes of two people being mentioned as two of the greatest of all time?
With Rafa, most definitely (Rafa is one year older)...with Roger, definitely not, as Roger is 6 years older (which in the game of tennis is a big age difference).
Also, both Rafa and Roger are not playing. So while Novak will keep collecting the hardware, the competition sucks. How does that factor in when assessing who is the GOAT?
Meh I still think sometimes it’s hard to compare eras - Sampras won 7 Wimbledon’s and I don’t think his career was as long as joker and some of that is the fitness these athletes have even 20 years ago. Back then tennis players didn’t play near as long as they do today. Pete was 7-0 in Wimbledon finals so that says a lot.
Well, if you stopped today he still leads the other two in most every numerical metric so I don’t know that it matters.
I am admittedly a Novak fan. So take this with a grain of salt. That said, there are a number of other indicators besides grand slams.
*By far the most weeks ranked #1
*The most years being the world's top ranked player
*Masters 1000 tournaments - these are the tournaments just below grand slams. He has easily won the most of these tournaments. More astoundingly, he has won each of these tournaments at least twice. No one else has won all of them even once.
*He is the only player to hold at least an 80% winning percentage on all three surfaces.
The argument about longevity doesn't hold water for me mainly because Federer was still winning/competing for slam titles at age 38 (Novak is not that old yet) and Novak is only one year younger than Nadal. Nadal won last year's French. So at the same age, their slams are still what they are. And if we argue longevity, Federer had some prime years without Rafa or Novak challenging.
To me, it's pretty simple:
Federer is the artist. His game was the most elegant and beautiful to watch.
Rafa is the bull with unreal intensity and greatest clay courter ever.
Novak is the technician and is just all around the best to ever do it.
I would add regarding the longevity piece, Novak was a shell of himself for nearly a year in his prime and then lost nearly a year with elbow surgery. It's not like he didn't also miss significant time with injury.
*By far the most weeks ranked #1
*The most years being the world's top ranked player
*Masters 1000 tournaments - these are the tournaments just below grand slams. He has easily won the most of these tournaments. More astoundingly, he has won each of these tournaments at least twice. No one else has won all of them even once.
*He is the only player to hold at least an 80% winning percentage on all three surfaces.
The argument about longevity doesn't hold water for me mainly because Federer was still winning/competing for slam titles at age 38 (Novak is not that old yet) and Novak is only one year younger than Nadal. Nadal won last year's French. So at the same age, their slams are still what they are. And if we argue longevity, Federer had some prime years without Rafa or Novak challenging.
To me, it's pretty simple:
Federer is the artist. His game was the most elegant and beautiful to watch.
Rafa is the bull with unreal intensity and greatest clay courter ever.
Novak is the technician and is just all around the best to ever do it.
I would add regarding the longevity piece, Novak was a shell of himself for nearly a year in his prime and then lost nearly a year with elbow surgery. It's not like he didn't also miss significant time with injury.
He was also hurt w the covid rules -- missing 2 grand slams that he would have had a decent chance of winning had he been allowed to play.
I have no problem if you want to crown Novak the GOAT.
As for longevity, yes, Roger was competitive into his late 30s, just like Novak is now. However, Roger was competing against Novak and Rafa in those grand slams...who is Novak competing against now? Also, I would venture to say Roger's competition pre Rafa/Novak was much better than Novak's post Rafa/Roger.
Also, Rafa had to go through Novak last yr to win the French...
As for injuries, I don't think anyone can hold a candle to what Rafa has gone through. I am not sure the numbers, but I would feel confident assuming Rafa has missed exponentially more grand slams due to injury than Novak has.
As for me, if I had to pick one of the three to win match in their prime to save my life, I would take Rafa. I think his peak is higher than the other two.
That data is extremely skewed. The HUGE majority of the time a player comes to net from a position of strength and on the attack. That will naturally lead to a high win % on those points. If a player came to the net almost every point arbitrarily, that % would drop significantly.
The game is so much faster now, a true serve and volleyer like Sampras just can’t compete in todays world. If they could, you’d see it.
We could back and forth on these things. Commentators have noted that perhaps style of play dictates injuries and that Novak's technique and precision reduces the tear on his body. Does it? I don't know. Given how they play, however, it seems reasonable.
Rafa went through Novak last year? Okay. Rafa did not go through Novak to win the Australian last year. So...okay.
If the match were going to be played on clay, of course anyone would choose Rafa. I already said he's the best clay court player.
I don't see how anyone would choose Rafa on hard court (especially any in-door surface) or grass. It's like his outward intensity overshadows Novak's inward drive. But I think trying to determine who the better competitor is is probably splitting hairs on something unmeasureable.
There are arguments for Rafa and Federer, no doubt. They're just not going to be found in the numbers.
You had indicated that Rafa had just won the French Open last year, implying that Rafa was still winning grand slams at 36, just like Novak did. My point was that while that is true, Rafa actually had real competition to go through, unlike Novak this year. That's all I was saying. Maybe I inferred incorrectly.
I would take Rafa over Novak on the hard courts of the US Open, at his peak, anytime of the day. He actually leads Novak 2-1 head to head at the US Open, and 4-3 overall in US Open titles.
And like I said in an earlier post, kudos to Novak, generally speaking, for having less injuries in his career. How he has stayed as healthy as he has most of his career is astonishing.
Rafa is the greatest clay courter of all time. No debate.
But as far as the other 3 slams, I would take Fed and Joker in their primes favored against Rafa in his prime.
In other words, to me the GOAT debate is between Fed and Joker.
But as far as the other 3 slams, I would take Fed and Joker in their primes favored against Rafa in his prime.
In other words, to me the GOAT debate is between Fed and Joker.
Well Rafa is 10-4 against Fed in grand slams. This includes beating Fed at Wimbledon during Fed's prime (something Novak never did)...Rafa is also 3-1 against Fed at the Australian, including beating Fed during his prime in 2009.
Also, Rafa is 11-7 in slams against Novak. This includes a 2-1 edge at the US Open, where Rafa beat Novak in 2010 and 2013, and Novak won in 2011.
And yes, to answer your earlier question, Novak is eligible to play US Open this year.
This is part of the reason I was hesitant to start. 
I don't want to pick at any of them because they're all great. But, as I noted, I prefer Novak.
I would actually say I'm stunned that Rafa has lasted has long as he has given the way he plays. That's a credit to him. On the other hand, I'm not sure I would give him an out for being injured more because the same way he plays that results in injuries also results in his successes.
Yes, I was pointing out that Novak was still winning at the same age as Rafa. But then you introduced the point that Rafa actually had real competition in last year's French. I was just pointing out that last year (which is the age equivalent as this year for Novak), Rafa won the Australian without Novak's participation. Different reason, I know.
Ultimately, for me, what undermines Rafa's claim to greatest is the fact that he has not won two of the 1000s competitions. Moreover, he never once won the End of Year tournament, which is on hard court with the top 8 point getters for the year. Novak and Federer are on the top of that board.
I'm also not sure I buy the Federer past prime...like when does a prime begin and end? Novak won Wimbledon in 2011, 2014, 2015, 2018, 2019, beating Federer in the finals of some of those. So when did Federer's prime actually end? Or perhaps, when did Novak's prime actually begin? Some players in any sport bloom later than others. It's interesting that one's prime seems to end when another's begins.
Regardless, thanks for the civil discourse. I post little on the board because I don't think that's typically the case.
I don't want to pick at any of them because they're all great. But, as I noted, I prefer Novak. I would actually say I'm stunned that Rafa has lasted has long as he has given the way he plays. That's a credit to him. On the other hand, I'm not sure I would give him an out for being injured more because the same way he plays that results in injuries also results in his successes.
Yes, I was pointing out that Novak was still winning at the same age as Rafa. But then you introduced the point that Rafa actually had real competition in last year's French. I was just pointing out that last year (which is the age equivalent as this year for Novak), Rafa won the Australian without Novak's participation. Different reason, I know.
Ultimately, for me, what undermines Rafa's claim to greatest is the fact that he has not won two of the 1000s competitions. Moreover, he never once won the End of Year tournament, which is on hard court with the top 8 point getters for the year. Novak and Federer are on the top of that board.
I'm also not sure I buy the Federer past prime...like when does a prime begin and end? Novak won Wimbledon in 2011, 2014, 2015, 2018, 2019, beating Federer in the finals of some of those. So when did Federer's prime actually end? Or perhaps, when did Novak's prime actually begin? Some players in any sport bloom later than others. It's interesting that one's prime seems to end when another's begins.
Regardless, thanks for the civil discourse. I post little on the board because I don't think that's typically the case.
Similar threads
