Who's The Greatest Player To Date?

[brokenshoelace]

Forget "all time" since many object to that notion.

Who's the greatest player we've seen so far?

PS: I expect this thread to be going strong until at least day 4 of Wimbledon. Don't disappoint me.

 

[rafanoy1992]

For get "all time" since many object to that notion.

Who's the greatest player we've seen so far?

PS: I expect this thread to be going strong until at least day 4 of Wimbledon. Don't disappoint me.

Roger Federer (even though I am a HUGE Nadal fan), when I just look at his career numbers , it is mind boggling what he has done throughout his career. In addition, he is almost 34 years old and he is still playing at high level (he is currently the number 2 player in the world).

 

[El Dude]

First of all, I assume you mean overall career greatness and not only how good a player was at their very best. Kieran likes to tout Lew Hoad as better than Laver and Rosewall, at least at his best, but clearly the record doesn't bear that out. Hoad goes down in history as a very talented player who could have been one of the greats, but one who didn't have the career to match his talent.

Anyhow, you asked for it so I'm going to go for it. I've done some extensive research on this question and the results are inconclusive, at least if we want to talk about all of tennis history. But if we look at the entirety of tennis history, in my mind there are eight players who stand out above the rest - what I'd call the "Herd of GOATs." In chronological order:

Bill Tilden, Pancho Gonzales, Ken Rosewall, Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg, Pete Sampras, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal.

Just outside of those eight you have a few players that don't quite make the cut: Don Budge, Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, and Novak Djokovic (so far; he has a chance to expand the "herd" to nine). Then there's a third group of a dozen or so players which includes players like Renshaw, Larned, Perry, Riggs, Cochet, Kramer, Newcombe, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Agassi, and many others.

Anyhow, of those eight it is really hard to narrow them down. But if we're going to go through a process of elimination, I'd cut Borg first - mainly because he retired in mid-career. If he had not only played another 5+ years AND rediscovered his passion, he probably would have won several more Slams and be more strongly in the running. But we have to look at what he did, which was remarkable, but below the other seven. Plus the fact that he never won the US Open mars his record.

So now we have seven. What to do next? It is hard to cut any of them. Tilden was the greatest the game had seen up to that point, and the overall most dominant player of two decades--the 20s and 30s--and played all the way into the mid-40s. He supposedly has a historical best career match record of 93.6%, which is just absurd. There were some other players who were as great as him for periods of time in the 30s and 40s, but none for as long as Tilden.

Pancho Gonzales is criminally underrated because he played most of his career as a pro and was banned from the amateur Slams. But he won 17 majors in all and was the best player of the 50s.

Laver is often considered the GOAT for his not one but TWO calendar Slams, and was clearly the greatest player of the 60s and is probably as good a candidate as any. Rosewall was to Laver what Agassi was the Sampras - not as good, but with greater longevity. Rosewall won Slams over a twenty year period of time, from 1953 to 1972, and has more majors than anyone with 23 in all. But he wasn't quite as good as Laver, so that will always work against him.

Borg was the greatest player in the world for a few short years, but never won the second most prestigious tournament in tennis history and quit while still quite young. I already cut him out.

Then we have Pistol Pete, who like Borg had a white whale he was never able to catch: the French Open. We can forgive him because of the tremendous court differences, but his main (and lesser) rival, Andre Agassi, was able to win all four. Pete also retired relatively young for a GOAT candidate.

Finally we have Fedal, who if we want to take the view that the game gets better and better could be considered the greatest players of all time (so far). Roger doesn't really have any negative marks on his record, despite the ghost of the supposed weak era and Rafa's dominance over him. But in terms of career accomplishments, his record is easily the greatest of the Open Era.

A couple years ago it looked like Rafa could take up the mantle. He could still win a couple more Slams, but the big mark on his GOAT candidacy is the lop-sidedness of his Slam record. His non-clay record is great, but not GOAT-great. In order to be considered the sole GOAT I think he needs at least two more non-clay Slams, and maybe a WTF (consider that over the last 40 years, of all 4+ Slam winners only Rafa, Wilander and Courier haven't won the ATP Finals...Vilas, Connors, Borg, Lendl, McEnroe, Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Federer, and Djokovic have all won it).

So where does that leave us? Well, there are two ways to do this. One is to talk about best of their era, or of different eras. If we split between pre-Open and Open it makes things a bit easier. I'd say:

Pre-Open Era
1. Laver
2. Rosewall
3. Gonzales
4. Tilden
5. Budge
6. Perry
7. Renshaw
8. Vines
9. Larned
10. Wilding or Cochet

Open Era
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Sampras
4. Borg
5. Connors
6. Lendl
7. Djokovic
8. McEnroe
9. Agassi
10. Edberg

(With Newcombe, Wilander and Becker just behind)

If push came to shove, I'd probably rank the fifteen GOATs in this order:

1. Laver
2. Federer
3. Rosewall
4. Gonzales
5. Tilden
6. Nadal
7. Sampras
8. Borg
9. Connors
10. Lendl
11. Djokovic
12. Budge
13. McEnroe
14. Agassi
15. Perry

I have some time this summer and once I get through my current article lineup, I'll do a more exhaustive study and write a blog about it.

 

[Puppet Master]

GWHSSF huh?
If we are going to be objective by any means, you would have to look at Federer and Nadal as the most successful players to date. All people talk about is the slam count, but I believe everyone can conclude why Rafa, even though he has less slams, can be legitimately placed in the discussion ( but that WTF titles number really hurts his him). Sampras just wasn't that good at those Masters toruneys, which points put their consistency.
Now for the subjective part, have a go at it everyone, I want to see opinions.
I feel there is no need to post mine as I have already said it before.

 

[bobvance]

This is a pretty good link for this kind of discussion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_World_Tour_records

Federer has just about every major record. He's accomplished everything. The only real knocks against him are the head to head with Rafa, and the nonsense weak era argument. And even if you believe both of those things damage his legacy he's probably still the greatest.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Why Laver about Federer, EL Dude?

PS: No, just teasing you, I know you gave your explanation.

 

[Fiero425]

Why Laver about Federer, EL Dude?

PS: No, just teasing you, I know you gave your explanation.

Even though I don't like him, I'm shocked "NO AGASSI" with a career GS and Gold Medal! uzzled :angel: :dodgy: - I'm calling Fed the GOAT because of all the records he owns in the OPEN era, but if a group agrees to Laver, I would easily acquiesce! He was the one I grew up with acknowledged by all the experts that if not for that silly rule separating the amateurs and pros, he would have cleaned up; probably had a couple more Grand Slams! He was a tough lefty, coached by the legendary Harry Hopman, and teamed with the best group of players at the time; Rosewall, Newcombe, Roche, Hoad, and many other HOF'rs! :clap :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Haelfix]

I vacillate between Borg and Federer but yea Roger's peak was a level of tennis i've never seen before or since.

Borg b/c he had such a mystique and went out at the near peak of his dominance. He's tennis' ultimate what if scenario.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Why Laver about Federer, EL Dude?

PS: No, just teasing you, I know you gave your explanation.

Even though I don't like him, I'm shocked "NO AGASSI" with a career GS and Gold Medal!

Probably because Nadal has the same achievement with a far more impressive resume.

 

[El Dude]

I expanded my lists above to include Agassi. The main reason he doesn't rank higher is that unlike all of the players above him, he didn't have a long period of time in which he was the singular dominant player in the game. There was only one year in which he was clearly #1, 1999--and I hate to say it, that was probably because Sampras was slipping and the next young generation hadn't really arrived yet--and he was an elite player for just about as long as anyone, but he didn't have that super high peak of dominance that all the true GOAT candidates have in common.

 

[Federberg]

I expanded my lists above to include Agassi. The main reason he doesn't rank higher is that unlike all of the players above him, he didn't have a long period of time in which he was the singular dominant player in the game. There was only one year in which he was clearly #1, 1999--and I hate to say it, that was probably because Sampras was slipping and the next young generation hadn't really arrived yet--and he was an elite player for just about as long as anyone, but he didn't have that super high peak of dominance that all the true GOAT candidates have in common.

Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but doesn't the same, albeit to a lesser extent apply to Rafa? Not having a particularly long period as the undisputed numero uno... Before anyone gets on my case I'm not saying Rafa shouldn't be on the list... quite the contrary. I'm just pointing out that the criteria itself might have unintended consequences...

 

[Federberg]

For my part, I would exclude non Open era tennis. It was a completely different sport, and while those guys might have been the best of the available sample it was such a small sub-set of the wider population as to damage the credibility of their achievements imho

That said, I would have Federer as the "greatest player to date"

But there have been times when Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras, Nadal and Djokovic have shown greatness as well. Roger gets it for me because of longevity. But the others have shown such extreme dominance in streaks. I won't comment on some of the earlier guys as they were a bit too early for me to look at them in that context

 

[brokenshoelace]

Call me insane but I rule out Laver completely from this conversation. His accomplishments are fantastic in his era, but the level of competition was anything but. We can swim around it all we want, but tennis is a lot more competitive post open-era, in every way.

The Rocket deserves respect but it would be ludicrous to put him on the same level as Federer, who did it in a far deeper, more competitive tour.

 

[Federberg]

^100% in agreement with you BS. That's the way I see it

 

[El Dude]

Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but doesn't the same, albeit to a lesser extent apply to Rafa? Not having a particularly long period as the undisputed numero uno... Before anyone gets on my case I'm not saying Rafa shouldn't be on the list... quite the contrary. I'm just pointing out that the criteria itself might have unintended consequences...

Sure, but to a much lesser extent than Agassi, in my opinion. I think when we talk about "greatest of all time so far" the candidates in question should have been the greatest of their generation or era, at least for a time. Agassi really never was the very greatest player on tour, except for that one year. Rafa, on the other hand, was probably the greatest player on tour from 2008-10, and of course 2013. To date he is still the greatest player of his generation and will likely remain so, or at least share the honor with Novak Djokovic. Agassi, on the other hand, was always second fiddle to Sampras, at least until the very end when Sampras was fading.

Now clearly Agassi was a great player, and by my reckoning the ninth greatest of the Open Era, but his relative greatness in terms of his generation or "era dominance" is less than Nadal's.

I think also Nadal has to get props for dominating Federer. Imagine if Agassi had the exact same career as he did in terms of career accomplishments, but dominated Sampras - the consensus best player of their generation. We'd look at him quite differently, I think.

For my part, I would exclude non Open era tennis. It was a completely different sport, and while those guys might have been the best of the available sample it was such a small sub-set of the wider population as to damage the credibility of their achievements imho

Yes, true - which is why I have two lists. It is very, very tricky to combine them but I did so with the view that we have to, first and foremost, look at how dominant a player was within the context they played. Laver was as dominant, if not more dominant, than any other player in tennis history, and for a substantial period of time.

The problem with writing off pre-Open Era players is that it penalizes them for playing at the time they played. I realize that the sport became more competitive in the Open Era, and the field much deeper at Grand Slams, we simply can't know how Laver or Gonzales would have fared in different eras - and that's not the point. In a similar fashion that we can't know if Babe Ruth would have been great in today's baseball game, nor do we need to. Ruth dominated baseball like no player before or since. He is acknowledged as the greatest player of all time because of his dominance during the time he played, in a similar fashion as Gretzky was for hockey or Jordan was for basketball.

 

[Federberg]

^Yup, don't really disagree with anything you say there Dude. The only comment I would add re: Agassi - and I'm certainly not trying to elevate him back into the group, but what would that H2H have been like if Pete was better on clay? Agassi seemed to have the edge over him on slower surfaces. This is the problem with even talking about H2H in my view, particularly the further back you go. If one player is not good enough to compete at the highest level their H2H looks good versus a more universal player. Which is why I tend to focus on a players tournament wins versus H2H. You don't become a professional tennis player to dominate specific rivals, you want to dominate the field

 

[Haelfix]

Then you get the Connors problem, which is that his h2h suffered against his great younger rivals, but he was already 28+ and past his prime, yet he continued playing for over a decade thereafter. His longevity was what made him seem lesser. So even though he dominates in his prime and then has great career longevity, it still seems like he was a lesser player than say Borg, who only played a very brief instance of time.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^Yup, don't really disagree with anything you say there Dude. The only comment I would add re: Agassi - and I'm certainly not trying to elevate him back into the group, but what would that H2H have been like if Pete was better on clay? Agassi seemed to have the edge over him on slower surfaces. This is the problem with even talking about H2H in my view, particularly the further back you go. If one player is not good enough to compete at the highest level their H2H looks good versus a more universal player. Which is why I tend to focus on a players tournament wins versus H2H. You don't become a professional tennis player to dominate specific rivals, you want to dominate the field

But what if some players played each other on every surface?

Take Fedal, whom most h2h discussions generally revolve around, they've actually played each other 15 times on clay and 15 times on hards. The same amount.

To me that head to head is more about which player was in his peak at a period of time (which highlights the age difference) than the surfaces they've played on, since they've played enough times on every surface (well, they've "only" played 3 times on grass but Wimbledon was the one tournament they could play at).

 

[Federberg]

Then you get the Connors problem, which is that his h2h suffered against his great younger rivals, but he was already 28+ and past his prime, yet he continued playing for over a decade thereafter. His longevity was what made him seem lesser. So even though he dominates in his prime and then has great career longevity, it still seems like he was a lesser player than say Borg, who only played a very brief instance of time.

Yes agreed. That's another flaw in the H2H. It's great for betting info, but I'm not sure about using it to assess "greatness"

 

[Federberg]

^Yup, don't really disagree with anything you say there Dude. The only comment I would add re: Agassi - and I'm certainly not trying to elevate him back into the group, but what would that H2H have been like if Pete was better on clay? Agassi seemed to have the edge over him on slower surfaces. This is the problem with even talking about H2H in my view, particularly the further back you go. If one player is not good enough to compete at the highest level their H2H looks good versus a more universal player. Which is why I tend to focus on a players tournament wins versus H2H. You don't become a professional tennis player to dominate specific rivals, you want to dominate the field

But what if some players played each other on every surface?

Take Fedal, whom most h2h discussions generally revolve around, they've actually played each other 15 times on clay and 15 times on hards. The same amount.

To me that head to head is more about which player was in his peak at a period of time (which highlights the age difference) than the surfaces they've played on, since they've played enough times on every surface (well, they've "only" played 3 times on grass but Wimbledon was the one tournament they could play at).

Yes I agree BS. And Haelfix also mentions that, in the specific case of Connors. We have to be nuanced when looking at that particular statistic