Revised Top 10 For Men All Time

[Moxie]

Secondly, I don't agree with your assessment of Laver, because it isn't about "what if" with him - it is about what he did on the pro tour. He won 8 Pro Slams, which were probably just as as hard if not harder to win than amateur Slams in the 60s. Pro Slams were much shorter, either three or four rounds, but against the best of the best - kind of similar to the WTF today. This is also why Ken Rosewall is generally underrated - he won "only" 8 Grand Slams, but 15 Pro Slams - thus a tennis history record 23 majors.

Laver won his first Grand Slam in 1962 when he dominated the amateur tour, defeating Roy Emerson in three finals and Marty Mulligan in the fourth. The next year he went pro and played three Pro Slams, losing two in the final to Rosewall and one in the QF to Earl Buchholz. The view is that he had a hard time adjusting to the higher talent level. Once he adjusted he surpassed Rosewall (who had surpassed Gonzales) as the top pro player. But the point being, after utterly dominating the amateur tour, he struggled against the higher level of pro players before adjusting - not unlike a minor league player in baseball struggling at first to adjust to the major leagues.

Even though Pro Slams don't have the historical credibility of amateur Slams, and even if we think they were easier because of their short length, I still think they can act as "place-holders" for Slams - representing just how good a given player was - and should be accounted for in total majors won. So the list would actually be:

23 Rosewall
19 Laver
18 Federer
15 Nadal
14 Tilden, Gonzales, Sampras
12 Emerson, Djokovic
11 Borg
10 Perry, Budge

Or here's a hand little chart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_male_players_statistics#Most_major_singles_titles

Addressing your point on Laver, I don't want to be either controversial about him, or dismissive, but there you see you have Rosewall up there. My larger point, re: Borg, actually, is that these are the reasons you can't take out the old guys for the sake of the current ones racking up Majors. I get it. I've always said that, at a certain point, it's hard to come up with the ultimate list, in order, and an ultimate GOAT. Though I will give you that Roger has been pressing his case. :devilfinger:

 

[mrzz]

Here´s my list, much better than all your shitty ones:

1. Kuerten
2. Rios
3. Hrbaty
4. Federer
5. One guy from the fifthies to show that I now tennis (but I don´t)
6. That guy who raped children from the 20´s to show that tennis players are all a bunch of perverts
7. Someone from the WTA to make the list politically correct, even if this about male players
8. Someone else from WTA to make it even nicer, someone ugly to make it perfect
9. A guy who used to play in my club, forgot his name
10. I don´t care

 

[Moxie]

Here´s my list, much better than all your shitty ones:

1. Kuerten
2. Rios
3. Hrbaty
4. Federer
5. One guy from the fifthies to show that I now tennis (but I don´t)
6. That guy who raped children from the 20´s to show that tennis players are all a bunch of perverts
7. Someone from the WTA to make the list politically correct, even if this about male players
8. Someone else from WTA to make it even nicer, someone ugly to make it perfect
9. A guy who used to play in my club, forgot his name
10. I don´t care

If you hadn't made it so pervy, I'd have given it a "like," but it did make me laugh. Kuerten, but of course.

 

[El Dude]

Well, rock stars aren't always beloved or likeable - mainly they just grab attention, and Jimmy gabbed attention. But I agree that Borg was the first "mega-star," but that may largely be because he is still the most "starrish" tennis player in history. I mean, later "rock stars" didn't surpass his shine. He's like the Beatles of tennis players.

 

[El Dude]

LOL, @mrzz.

 

[Moxie]

Well, rock stars aren't always beloved or likeable - mainly they just grab attention, and Jimmy gabbed attention. But I agree that Borg was the first "mega-star," but that may largely be because he is still the most "starrish" tennis player in history. I mean, later "rock stars" didn't surpass his shine. He's like the Beatles of tennis players.

And its J.D. Salinger, all rolled into one.

 

[Fiero425]

Hard to argue with that list. I would probably have Lendl above Connors, and maybe Sampras and Novak equal. But I wouldn't die in a ditch to argue against yours

Agreed! It's happened before and it'll happen again; the opinion on where each of these great champions rank "all time!" OTTH, the general consensus was Rod Laver with 2 CYGS, 1 am./1 pro was the GOAT! Borg's short, but impressive career placed him right up there with his 11 majors! Then came Sampras' ascension in the 90's, and I think we were willing to overlook his deficiencies on clay by not even making a FO final because we wanted to see history being made! Federer came along and the rest is history! Some want to put Rafa above Roger since the H2H is in the Spaniard's favor! Then Nole came up fast and we were ready to put him above Rafa even though down 2, now 3 majors with his dismal record since completing his Nole-Slam! Now he may drop back further unless he can turn it around!

1. Federer - The ATG / GOAT with little chance of it changing in our lifetime
2. Nadal - solidified his position w/ 10th FO, but the inconsistency issue will return if Nole has a finishing kick
3a. Borg - For obvious w/ 5 straight Wimbledon & established as a "GOD" on clay by winning 6 FO's; 4 straight
- 3b. Lave with his 2 CYGS deserves an honorable mention
4. Djokovic - Dropped from #2 due to dismal past calendar year, but secure at #4 with a Nole-Slam
5. Sampras - dropped from #1 with the excellence of Fedalovic and his FO failures w/ no finals
... :cuckoo:

 

[britbox]

This is a good watch:

 

[Haelfix]

I don't think this is quite fair, or at least has to be balanced by the fact that Novak rose to his best and dominated Rafa when Rafa was also at his best, in 2011. I've put forth the idea before that Rafa in 2011 as exactly as good as he was in 2010 when he had his best overall year, except against Novak.s

I don't think Rafa was at his best in 2010 or 2011. Imo he was at his all time best in 2008. Yea he gets better on hard courts after his absence but imo he lost a little something on the natural surfaces as a result. It's just one of those things where I think stats lie a bit. Like commentators talking about Rogers no set dropped at Wimbledon as if that's proof that he's better than ever. I don't buy it, bc it doesn't pass the eye test.

 

[Moxie]

I don't think Rafa was at his best in 2010 or 2011. Imo he was at his all time best in 2008. Yea he gets better on hard courts after his absence but imo he lost a little something on the natural surfaces as a result. It's just one of those things where I think stats lie a bit. Like commentators talking about Rogers no set dropped at Wimbledon as if that's proof that he's better than ever. I don't buy it, bc it doesn't pass the eye test.

I do get your point about Rafa in 2008. I think he was full-flight, young, fearless, untouchable on clay, beat TMF on grass, etc. I think he came to earth a bit after having his body fail him, and losing at RG. 2010 was a more mature Nadal. That year gets listed as his best because he was the first ever to hold Majors on all 3 surfaces, because he won 3 Majors, and he completed the career Slam at 22. You can't really say it wasn't a banner year. And 2011, while he lost in big moments to Djokovic, he was the 2nd best player that year. If you contend that those weren't good years for Nadal, you give him barely any peak years, at all. He was great in 2010 and near-great in 2011. While I also don't buy that Roger, or Rafa, is better than ever, they seem to have broken the maturity barrier. Rested and healthy, their real tennis chops combined with their rarified experience seems to be giving them a new lease on their tennis lives.

 

[rafanoy1992]

I do get your point about Rafa in 2008. I think he was full-flight, young, fearless, untouchable on clay, beat TMF on grass, etc. I think he came to earth a bit after having his body fail him, and losing at RG. 2010 was a more mature Nadal. That year gets listed as his best because he was the first ever to hold Majors on all 3 surfaces, because he won 3 Majors, and he completed the career Slam at 22. You can't really say it wasn't a banner year. And 2011, while he lost in big moments to Djokovic, he was the 2nd best player that year. If you contend that those weren't good years for Nadal, you give him barely any peak years, at all. He was great in 2010 and near-great in 2011. While I also don't buy that Roger, or Rafa, is better than ever, they seem to have broken the maturity barrier. Rested and healthy, their real tennis chops combined with their rarified experience seems to be giving them a new lease on their tennis lives.

Actually Moxie he achieved the Career Slam at 24 not 22

Anyways, I agree with both Haeflix and your view about Nadal's best years.

I always thought that Nadal's best year was 2008 (by a small margin). In all honesty, from Hamburg to the Olympics he literally played his highest level of tennis I have ever seen from him.

Here are the stats from that amazing run:

38-1 (6 titles - 2 on Clay, 2 on Grass, and 2 on Hardcourts)
2 Masters 1000 titles, 2 Grand Slams, 1 Olympic gold and 1 250 event (now a 500 event)

The players he beat in that run:

Djokovic: 4-1 (the only guy to beat him) (he beat Djokovic in three different surfaces)
Federer: 3-0 (Hamburg, FO, and Wimbledon)
Murray: 3-0 (Hamburg, Wimbledon, and Toronto) (three different surfaces)
Roddick on grass (Roddick was still a good grass player)

One more thing: He did all of these in a 13 week span too...

On the other hand, I totally agree about your description about Nadal in 2010. I would say that year was a more mature Nadal in terms of playing style. You could also say a more efficient Nadal too. Finally, that year was the first time I saw Nadal truly peak at Slams instead of warmups and slams.

 

[Moxie]

Actually Moxie he achieved the Career Slam at 24 not 22

Anyways, I agree with both Haeflix and your view about Nadal's best years.

I always thought that Nadal's best year was 2008 (by a small margin). In all honesty, from Hamburg to the Olympics he literally played his highest level of tennis I have ever seen from him.

Here are the stats from that amazing run:

38-1 (6 titles - 2 on Clay, 2 on Grass, and 2 on Hardcourts)
2 Masters 1000 titles, 2 Grand Slams, 1 Olympic gold and 1 250 event (now a 500 event)

The players he beat in that run:

Djokovic: 4-1 (the only guy to beat him) (he beat Djokovic in three different surfaces)
Federer: 3-0 (Hamburg, FO, and Wimbledon)
Murray: 3-0 (Hamburg, Wimbledon, and Toronto) (three different surfaces)
Roddick on grass (Roddick was still a good grass player)

One more thing: He did all of these in a 13 week span too...

On the other hand, I totally agree about your description about Nadal in 2010. I would say that year was a more mature Nadal in terms of playing style. You could also say a more efficient Nadal too. Finally, that year was the first time I saw Nadal truly peak at Slams instead of warmups and slams.

Thanks, @rafanoy1992, for those excellent stats. And I agree with you on the difference between 2008/2010.

 

[rafanoy1992]

Thanks, @rafanoy1992, for those excellent stats. And I agree with you on the difference between 2008/2010.

No problem, Moxie!

One more thing: he is actually the last male player to win at least 2 titles on Clay, Grass, and Hardcourt in the same season. So much for the Clay specialist right?

 

[Moxie]

No problem, Moxie!

One more thing: he is actually the last male player to win at least 2 titles on Clay, Grass, and Hardcourt in the same season. So much for the Clay specialist right?

You are my hero. ::sw1::

 

[mrzz]

There´s one thing that people don´t take into account when they say that Federer or Nadal are better now then before, which is -- as cliche as it might be -- experience. In both guys cases, there is simply no situation that they´re not been in. Great wins, tough losses, comebacks, etc. That´s why, with history on the line, Federer was way cooler than Cilic on the final. Anyone who stepped on a tennis court knows how much that counts.

In Nadal´s case, given his giant tennis IQ, experience makes him a scary tactical monster. The way he dismantled opposition on clay this year is proof of that. In Federer´s case experience made him more tactically obedient (but I would say this is true since 2013), and one thing that stands out now is that he actually learned a lot from his coaches: you could tell clearly the new tricks added from the Annacone, Edberg and Ljubicic. For a guy who stood without a coach for so long, that´s impressive. BTW, Ljubicic must be a helluva a coach. He already did a fine job with Raonic, and now this.

So, back to the point, I do not think that they are "better" now than they were in their prime years, but they are smarter, and surely more efficient. I would say that Fedal in their prime would beat Fedal of today 75 to 80% of the time, but on the other hand there are some situations that Fedal of today would be able to escape that prime Fedal wouldn´t.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Good article on GOAT debate in Huffington Post. This one is actually against 19 being the highest tally, but is right on the mark.

 

[Federberg]

^ I read that article and just snorted. I don't have much respect for it at all. To be honest, I'm getting fed to my back teeth about the Laver thing. First of all.. let's take his first calendar slam, this was done in an era where 3 of the 4 slams were on grass, this was also done in an era where the best players were on a "professional" circuit. Can someone explain to me why he gets a pass for that? If people are so willing to speculate on how many more slams he would have got if he had continued playing on the amateur circuit, shouldn't we also speculate about whether he would have won the calendar slam at all or indeed as many more slams as people fantasise about in his lost years? After all, what would have happened if the professionals had also played on the same tour as the amateurs?

It's all woulda coulda for me. Another thing that gets my goat is look at a player like Sampras. How many slams would he have won if 3 of the 4 slams in his era were on grass. Can we move on from this Laver stuff. Yes he was an awesome player. I love watching the old tapes of him. There's no question, with that one hander, I would have been a huge fan of his. But can we talk sense here? Different era, vastly less depth, we should speak his name with reverence, but let's not pretend he's in Federer or Nadal's league. He simply isn't...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

^ I read that article and just snorted. I don't have much respect for it at all. To be honest, I'm getting fed to my back teeth about the Laver thing. First of all.. let's take his first calendar slam, this was done in an era where 3 of the 4 slams were on grass, this was also done in an era where the best players were on a "professional" circuit. Can someone explain to me why he gets a pass for that? If people are so willing to speculate on how many more slams he would have got if he had continued playing on the amateur circuit, shouldn't we also speculate about whether he would have won the calendar slam at all or indeed as many more slams as people fantasise about in his lost years? After all, what would have happened if the professionals had also played on the same tour as the amateurs?

It's all woulda coulda for me. Another thing that gets my goat is look at a player like Sampras. How many slams would he have won if 3 of the 4 slams in his era were on grass. Can we move on from this Laver stuff. Yes he was an awesome player. I love watching the old tapes of him. There's no question, with that one hander, I would have been a huge fan of his. But can we talk sense here? Different era, vastly less depth, we should speak his name with reverence, but let's not pretend he's in Federer or Nadal's league. He simply isn't...

1. I agree with your point about many tourneys being on grass and thus CYGS was easier those days.

2. However, I disagree with your point bolded above. Laver was successful in the profession circuit and was also successful when professionals were allowed to play in regular slams.

As for actual play, I have not matched much of Laver to personally comment.

 

[Federberg]

1. I agree with your point about many tourneys being on grass and thus CYGS was easier those days.

2. However, I disagree with your point bolded above. Laver was successful in the profession circuit and was also successful when professionals were allowed to play in regular slams.

As for actual play, I have not matched much of Laver to personally comment.

Laver eventually became successful on the professional tour. That was not the case to begin with. It's not clear to me he would have won that first calendar slam, and how you start often has a huge impact on the whole thing. My main point is that people assume a larger number of slams to Laver if he had competed for them in the lost years. The whole thing is just nuts to me. Quite apart from the entire field, pros and amateurs being not particularly deep, but worse still it was segmented, so even less deep. And people try to suggest there's some sort of equivalence to what guys in this era face? It's utterly absurd

 

[Fiero425]

1. I agree with your point about many tourneys being on grass and thus CYGS was easier those days.

2. However, I disagree with your point bolded above. Laver was successful in the profession circuit and was also successful when professionals were allowed to play in regular slams.

As for actual play, I have not matched much of Laver to personally comment.

Like any era, you can only play against the comp. and conditions offered and available at the time! It's a bit ridiculous to try and fault Laver for either pros being barred from major events until the end of '68 or the fact 3 of the 4 majors were played on grass! That's about as ridiculous to blame the current "Big 4" for the overuse of homogenized courts & being protected with 32 seeds! That's the major reason they have owned most of the events for well over 12 years! Any other era and some shine would be taken off all of them; esp. Rafa! IMO he's the weakest of the 4 with so many issues over the years with his consistency! Roger the only player so far who's maxed out his abilities!