Revised Top 10 For Men All Time

[shawnbm]

I stand by my criteria--I really don't know how much more objective you could get. I don't know what you mean about Sampras leading Federer in the H2H without a doubt. As far as I know, they played one time and Federer beat Sampras 7-5 in the fifth set at Wimbledon. But, there is no doubt that Sampras excelled and broke slam records by winning 7 grass slams and 7 hard court slams. Yet, Federer won 7 grass slams, 9 hard court slams and then 1 slam on clay--in addition to reaching the finals of the French another 4 times (whereas Sampras never even reached one French final in his career). So, under slam criteria Federer gets the nod in my book, regardless of competition.

H2H is an entirely different matter. I personally believe Federer would have fairly dominated Sampras on clay, beat him more times than not on hard courts and been Sampras' equal on grass. Yet, Nadal pretty much matches up perfectly with Roger and would win on slow hards and clay fairly routinely--and would likely do the same to Sampras. Sampras would have had the same problems with Rafa's lefty FH to the BH as Roger has had over the years. But guys like Connors and Borg would not, and likely not even McEnroe. Trying to analyze how guys would do against each other by pulling them out of time won't work--although I think what I say about Pete, Roger and Rafa would hold true in large part.

 

[ClayDeath]

nadal passed Sampras yesterday.

 

[tented]

It seems to me the key criteria are grand slam events and winning or going deep (to finals) in the ones you played in--across all surfaces, and total weeks at number one as that necessarily includes major victories and plenty of lower tier titles that make a player the best of a given year or epoch. Under those criteria, guys like Federer, Sampras, Borg, Connors, Lendl, McEnroe,and Nadal have to be up there (talking Open Era only). Yes, there are others, but those guys had many weeks at number one, no less than 7 majors, a slew of other titles and won or went to finals on all surfaces (except Sampras and Connors, technically--although Connors won slams on all surfaces like Fed and Rafa).

The problem with this list is that, you or anyone is basically concluding that Federer is better than Sampras or Laver or Nadal etc. and vice versa based on results mostly or perhaps entirely. For all I know, there's absolutely no way of knowing how Sampras would have fared in Laver's era or Federer's era given the same competition level, let's say. And there's that obvious notion, how would they have fared against each other? What if both Sampras and Federer were from the same era and while Sampras had 3 less Slams than Federer, however, he led the H2H without a doubt (let's while Federer led him on clay but Sampras led him on both grass and clay? This is just one sample scenario among so many others.

Exactly. There's a sub-debate within the main debate concerning whether or not the theoretical concept of players from different eras playing each other should be taken into account. Or whether the GOAT should be decided purely on each player's accomplishments during their own era. Personally, I think the latter is the better approach, because it's pointless to declare, say, Sampras is better than Laver because he could beat him if they played today, since players are generally more fit and stronger than they used to be.

To me, the true GOAT would be the guy who most dominates his own era. A few years ago, Nehmeth came up with the acronym GOTE: Greatest Of Their Era. I've always liked that. So, in other words, GOAT is the greatest GOTE.

It's all subjective, in the end. It's an endless debate.

 

[El Dude]

Tented, I agree with the latter definition but I think you can stretch it a bit further and not only define the GOAT as the greatest within their own era, but relative to the greatness of other players within their own era. This allows us to compare players, but lets us avoid the pointless "How would X player have fared in Y era?"

This also means that we have to consider at least three players alongside Roger Federer for GOAT: Rod Laver, Ken Rosewall, and Pancho Gonzales, all of whom had similar phases of dominance, although as far as I can tell Rosewall was never as dominant as Gonzales or Laver, but was around much longer. In a way Rosewall as the Agassi to Laver's Sampras.

I also generally agree with the shawnbm describes: Slam results first and foremost, rankings, but I'd also add in other titles as distinct from rankings. I've dabbled with point systems but always felt uncomfortable with the subjective element - that is, how many points to give to different Slam results? Or how many points to give to a Slam Final vs. an ATP 1000 title? Etc.

Actually, I'm going to start a separate thread - check it out.

 

[Emma]

I stand by my criteria--I really don't know how much more objective you could get. I don't know what you mean about Sampras leading Federer in the H2H without a doubt. As far as I know, they played one time and Federer beat Sampras 7-5 in the fifth set at Wimbledon. But, there is no doubt that Sampras excelled and broke slam records by winning 7 grass slams and 7 hard court slams. Yet, Federer won 7 grass slams, 9 hard court slams and then 1 slam on clay--in addition to reaching the finals of the French another 4 times (whereas Sampras never even reached one French final in his career). So, under slam criteria Federer gets the nod in my book, regardless of competition.

H2H is an entirely different matter. I personally believe Federer would have fairly dominated Sampras on clay, beat him more times than not on hard courts and been Sampras' equal on grass. Yet, Nadal pretty much matches up perfectly with Roger and would win on slow hards and clay fairly routinely--and would likely do the same to Sampras. Sampras would have had the same problems with Rafa's lefty FH to the BH as Roger has had over the years. But guys like Connors and Borg would not, and likely not even McEnroe. Trying to analyze how guys would do against each other by pulling them out of time won't work--although I think what I say about Pete, Roger and Rafa would hold true in large part.

You have missed my point. For example, the first highlighted part was only a probabilistic outcome among many. Federer dominating Sampras would have been another outcome or they could have been just even in the H2H or even with equal amounts of Slams who knows and that's my main point. We simply don't know. When you say this would have happened or that would have happened based on the individual accomplishments in different eras, you are essentially injecting a faith based assumption. In truth, you have no way proving it. And there's nothing objective about it either so you can't get 'more' objective even if you try harder, as there's no such thing in these probable assumptions. For example, if I were to tell you in 2006 that Nadal would rise to the occasion from clay and would take the Master to his task and would beat him in 3 Slam finals in a row including clay, grass and hard, you would have not believe it at any cost. And yet that has happened.

As to your second highlighted point, again, as you can see you are injecting your own belief system into things that we have no way of knowing...ever. This makes Federer look better I suppose but it's not the truth. And when it involves two big time players, the H2H matters considerably. So just because you think it shouldn't matter doesn't mean it really doesn't matter. If I were to switch around the H2H between Federer and Nadal, you'd be basking in glory. So at the end of the day, it's really a biased and convenient opinion.

 

[Emma]

It seems to me the key criteria are grand slam events and winning or going deep (to finals) in the ones you played in--across all surfaces, and total weeks at number one as that necessarily includes major victories and plenty of lower tier titles that make a player the best of a given year or epoch. Under those criteria, guys like Federer, Sampras, Borg, Connors, Lendl, McEnroe,and Nadal have to be up there (talking Open Era only). Yes, there are others, but those guys had many weeks at number one, no less than 7 majors, a slew of other titles and won or went to finals on all surfaces (except Sampras and Connors, technically--although Connors won slams on all surfaces like Fed and Rafa).

The problem with this list is that, you or anyone is basically concluding that Federer is better than Sampras or Laver or Nadal etc. and vice versa based on results mostly or perhaps entirely. For all I know, there's absolutely no way of knowing how Sampras would have fared in Laver's era or Federer's era given the same competition level, let's say. And there's that obvious notion, how would they have fared against each other? What if both Sampras and Federer were from the same era and while Sampras had 3 less Slams than Federer, however, he led the H2H without a doubt (let's while Federer led him on clay but Sampras led him on both grass and clay? This is just one sample scenario among so many others.

Exactly. There's a sub-debate within the main debate concerning whether or not the theoretical concept of players from different eras playing each other should be taken into account. Or whether the GOAT should be decided purely on each player's accomplishments during their own era. Personally, I think the latter is the better approach, because it's pointless to declare, say, Sampras is better than Laver because he could beat him if they played today, since players are generally more fit and stronger than they used to be.

To me, the true GOAT would be the guy who most dominates his own era. A few years ago, Nehmeth came up with the acronym GOTE: Greatest Of Their Era. I've always liked that. So, in other words, GOAT is the greatest GOTE.

It's all subjective, in the end. It's an endless debate.

In that case tented, do you think that Federer's opponents in his time (Roddick, Safain, Hewitt) were tougher than Nadal's opponents (Federer, Nole, Murray and Delpotro)? The level of competition should not matter? What if Federer retires next year and Nadal continues to slide down and Murray is only left with Nole and he can now pretty much dominate him on two surfaces? Do you suppose he'd have an easier time then (going forward) than now (2013) or before (2008 - 2012)? Or would it still not matter as long as you dominate - either some mental midgets youngsters or some true legend of tennis in your time?

 

[britbox]

I'd say the competition you have listed for Nadal has also been additional competition for Federer. I think he's played Murray and Del Potro more often than Nadal has.

 

[Emma]

nadal passed Sampras yesterday.

Negative. 14 Majors and 6 straight years at No. 1. Never got beaten by his No. 1 rival 3 straight times (both Federer and Nadal have similar history)in Slam finals and had comfortably dominated all his rivals in his time. Let's not get emotional.

 

[Emma]

I'd say the competition you have listed for Nadal has also been additional competition for Federer. I think he's played Murray and Del Potro more often than Nadal has.

The competition time I am listing here for these two are: Roger from 2003 to 2007 and Nadal, from 2008 to 2012. So Nadal didn't actually become Federer's true rival until 2008. Federer won 12 Majors in that time period. Nadal won 9. Nadal was beaten twice by Murray in Slams (USO & AO), Del Potro once (USO) and by Nole three times.

I take these two time frames (5 years each) as their prime years.

 

[britbox]

Ok, working by that logic and time frame then Federer wasn't dominated by his main rival and dominated the tour like no player before or after.... Sounds good to me.

 

[Emma]

I guess the point is, his main rival also happens to be a great legend of tennis. What Federer achieved is unmatchable to date no doubt, but Nada had tougher competition judging by who he had to face in his time. But regardless, I don't agree with the notion that whoever dominated their era the most is the true Goat of all Goats. I find that logic somewhat flawed.

 

[ClayDeath]

there really is no such thing as goat anyway. its for the press and the suckers who need a good story or a hero to worship.

no way to compare players from across different and distant eras.

 

[ClayDeath]

there are only greats and all time greats relative to their best surface.

that might be the only objective and reasonable way to go about declaring who is the best of all time if we simply must go on that path.

how dominant was a particular player on his best surface?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

there are only greats and all time greats relative to their best surface.

that might be the only objective and reasonable way to go about declaring who is the best of all time if we simply must go on that path.

how dominant was a particular player on his best surface?

A True Goat cannot be surface deep.

 

[tented]

Tented, I agree with the latter definition but I think you can stretch it a bit further and not only define the GOAT as the greatest within their own era, but relative to the greatness of other players within their own era. This allows us to compare players, but lets us avoid the pointless "How would X player have fared in Y era?"

This also means that we have to consider at least three players alongside Roger Federer for GOAT: Rod Laver, Ken Rosewall, and Pancho Gonzales, all of whom had similar phases of dominance, although as far as I can tell Rosewall was never as dominant as Gonzales or Laver, but was around much longer. In a way Rosewall as the Agassi to Laver's Sampras.

I also generally agree with the shawnbm describes: Slam results first and foremost, rankings, but I'd also add in other titles as distinct from rankings. I've dabbled with point systems but always felt uncomfortable with the subjective element - that is, how many points to give to different Slam results? Or how many points to give to a Slam Final vs. an ATP 1000 title? Etc.

Actually, I'm going to start a separate thread - check it out.

Here it is:

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=705

 

[tented]

I guess the point is, his main rival also happens to be a great legend of tennis. What Federer achieved is unmatchable to date no doubt, but Nada had tougher competition judging by who he had to face in his time. But regardless, I don't agree with the notion that whoever dominated their era the most is the true Goat of all Goats. I find that logic somewhat flawed.

Sure, it's flawed. I readily admit that. But isn't every theory flawed in one way or another in these debates? That's why I think they're half-fun, half-maddening.

Check out El Dude's new thread on establishing parameters to determine the GOAT. I think you'll like it.

 

[ClayDeath]

there are only greats and all time greats relative to their best surface.

that might be the only objective and reasonable way to go about declaring who is the best of all time if we simply must go on that path.

how dominant was a particular player on his best surface?

A True Goat cannot be surface deep.

well as I have suggested, there really is no such thing as true goat but surface specific greatness can be a good place to start for the sake of these fun discussions.


and then you move on to the next surface for the same player. and so on.

 

[Fiero425]

I just can't give Nadal all due credit because of the lop-sided number of clay court victories! He has surpassed Borg in that respect, but Bjorn went from the FO to Wimbledon grass to win 3 straight years, making the final 4 straight as well! I want to give Sampras the benefit of the doubt when it comes to being the GOAT assuming with his serve he'd beat Federer in his prime, but only playing 1 semi and 1 quarter at the FO disqualifies him since Roger took his lone title in '09 and played several finals! Was watching the countdown about the greatest players on TCC which got me thinking and venting again! Anyone else?

 

[Fiero425]

The more things supposedly change, the more they actually stay the same I guess!

 

[Fiero425]

Since some of the true greats are still playing, some names will flip I'm sure:

1) Federer - 17 majors & holds so many recs incl. 300+ wks @ #1, 7 Wimbledons & 5 str. USO's)
2) Laver - 2 cal. yr Gr Slams - should have more majors (11) but for amateur rules
3) Sampras - Held #1 ranking for 6 years and won 7 Wimbledons, 5 USO's, 2 AO's
4) Bjorn Borg - Won 5 straight Wimbledons and 6 French Opens (4 straight)
5) Rafa Nadal - Won 7 FO's and a career Grand Slam (Olympic Gold in singles)
6) Agassi - Career Grand Slam including 8 majors and Olympic Gold in singles
7) Lendl - 8 majors and won 94 titles including 3 USO, 3 FO's, & 5 Masters
8) Connors - Won 107 titles including 5 USO on 3 surfaces, 2 Wimbledons, 1 AO
9) McEnroe - Won 7 majors including 3 Str. USO's, 4 overall - 3 Wimbledons
10)Roy Emerson - Honorary top 10 holding 12 majors in singles - (pre-Open era)

This is just from memory! If any errors, feel free to let me know and make your choices for the top 10 of all time for the men! Novak Djokovic will break into the top 10 in good time! Women to come on another thread!

1) Federer - 18 majors & holds many records incl. 300+ wks. @ #!, 7 Wimbl. & 5 str. USO's (OG in dubs)
2) Rafa Nadal - Won 10 FO's, 15 majors and a career Grand Slam - (OG in singles & dubs)
3) Laver - 2 CYGS (1 am. 1 pro) - should have more majors (11) but for amateur rules
4) Sampras - Held #1 ranking for 6 years and won 7 Wimbledons, 5 USO's, 2 AO's
5) Djokovic - Won Nole-Slam, 6 Aussie Opens, 12 majors, 5 YEC's, more TBD
6) Bjorn Borg - Won 5 straight Wimbledons and 6 French Opens (4 straight)
7) Agassi - Career Grand Slam including 8 majors and Olympic Gold in singles
8) Lendl - 8 majors and won 94 titles including 3 USO, 3 FO's, & 5 YEC's
9) Connors - Won 107 titles including 5 USO on 3 surfaces, 2 Wimbledons, 1 AO
10) McEnroe - Won 7 majors including 3 Str. USO's, 4 overall - 3 Wimbledons
11)Roy Emerson - Honorary mention holding 12 majors in singles - (pre-Open era)

Again, it's OTOH! I had to move Nole down with such a dismal period, winning little to nothing! Feel free to put in 2 cents!