Where do you rank Nadal on the GOAT list?

[Russeljones]

How the hell is Borg above Nadal?

[Strobe Lights]

Originally Posted by Russeljones

How the hell is Borg above Nadal?

Dominated two polar opposite surfaces, clay and grass, at Majors. Also showed great ability on indoor carpet, winning 22 titles, and hard court, where he reached the final of 3 of the 4 Majors he played on it. For comparative purposes, it took Federer and Nadal until their 11th Major on clay and hard respectively to win their first and Sampras never won on clay in 13 attempts. Plus, 5 consecutive years with a winning percentage over 90%. Personally, I have Borg over Sampras, who is the greatest fast court player of the Open era.

I don't agree with simply looking at Career Slam and number of Majors. The status of the Australian in the past is definitely of relevance. Perhaps people would have played it if they realised that number of Majors would become so important, by Sampras gunning for Emerson's record. I find it funny that people regarded Sampras as the best ever when he passed that record, when no one even considered Emerson a top-tier candidate. The likes of Borg, Connors and McEnroe knew that chasing that record should not matter, because the numbers of Laver, Rosewall and others were affected by the pro/amateur divide. By the 90's, this complex history of tennis was swept aside for the ease of number of Majors, which from a marketing point of view makes perfect sense.

Why are people including Laver, but not Rosewall and others, in these lists?

For me, in the Open era, I'd say.

1. Federer
2. Borg
3. Sampras
4. Nadal
5. Lendl

So Nadal is the 4th greatest of the Open era for me at the moment and, of course, the greatest clay courter. In spite of being 3 Majors behind, I'd have Lendl closer to Nadal than most people. Considering he reached two finals on the old grass, his chances of completing the Career Slam on the new grass would be much higher. These are the types of things that make comparison between eras so difficult. He has the greater number of titles, more Major finals and an amazing record at the YEC. I haven't given it too much thought, but Connors would be #6 and I could see an argument for him above Lendl, due to his lack of participation in Australia and the French and his ridiculous longevity.

[RF-17-GOAT]

The only guy who can challenge Fed to the G.O.A.T title is Rafa.

[reversef]

Originally Posted by Strobe Lights

Why are people including Laver, but not Rosewall and others, in these lists?

For me, in the Open era, I'd say.

1. Federer
2. Borg
3. Sampras
4. Nadal
5. Lendl

That's how I see it as well.

[Russeljones]

Originally Posted by Strobe Lights

I don't agree with simply looking at Career Slam and number of Majors.

I am sorry but if people are going to make up criteria for ranking tennis players this discussion will really go bonkers.

A Grand Slam tournament is the most difficult and prestigious prize on offer in pro tennis. How can you objectively decide to disregard it?

You may not like Nadal and Sampras but they exceed Borg's accomplishments and it's not a difficult arithmetic either.

PS: Rosewall was a factor in the Open era? This is news to me.

[zcarzach]

Originally Posted by USOpenfan

1)Federer
2)Sampras
3)Borg
4)Laver
5)Nadal
My list for the moment..changes from year to year.

This seems about right.

[tank_job]

1). Rafael Nadal
2). Jim Courier
3). Michael Chang
4). Michael Russel
5). Caroline Wozniacki

[zcarzach]

Originally Posted by tank_job

1). Rafael Nadal
2). Jim Courier
3). Michael Chang
4). Michael Russel
5). Caroline Wozniacki

GPOATs?

+10boringmatches

[Alchemy-Z]

All time Tennis Goat List why do you guys always leave Graf off?

Steffi Graf- Singles - Career Golden Slam (22 GS Titles)
Doubles - Bronze- (1 GS Title)

No Male has ever had a career golden Slam
No Male has 22 GS titles (singles)
Steffi Graf weeks at #1 - 377 (no one made her a pair of shoes) next closest person in 45 weeks behind.

She has Medals in Both Doubles and Singles
She had a Slam win in Both Doubles and Singles

I mean everyone talks about FED as goat (and I am a Fed fan)

but on paper

Steffi 22GS > Rogers 17GS
Steffi wks at #1 377 > Rogers 287 wks at #1
Steffi Calendar/Golden Slam
Steffi 5 YEC's < Roger 6 YEC's

Steffi-singles Record 900–115 (88.7%)
Roger singles record 853–192 (81.63%)
(harder to show since roger has played 45 more matches)

Steffi played 17 Years
Roger is at 14 Years

so in 3 years he will need to win a Calendar Golden Slam (impossible now)
Win 5 more Slams (out of 13 more chances)
Win a Calendar Slam (with 3 more chances)
and be at #1 for another 90 weeks (that is 14 weeks shy of 2 years at #1)

To knock off Fraulein Forehand

[Cruentus]

Pretty sure people are talking Men's Tour, Alchemy-Z.

You can't compare the men and women, apples and oranges.

Why does someone always have to try and act like women can compete with men in sports?

They can't, I'm sorry. There's a reason women have their own tour, because they can't play with the men at the same level. It's genetics, and it's not going to change any time soon.

[Russeljones]

Originally Posted by Alchemy-Z

All time Tennis Goat List why do you guys always leave Graf off?

Steffi Graf- Singles - Career Golden Slam (22 GS Titles)
Doubles - Bronze- (1 GS Title)

No Male has ever had a career golden Slam
No Male has 22 GS titles (singles)
Steffi Graf weeks at #1 - 377 (no one made her a pair of shoes) next closest person in 45 weeks behind.

She has Medals in Both Doubles and Singles
She had a Slam win in Both Doubles and Singles

I mean everyone talks about FED as goat (and I am a Fed fan)

but on paper

Steffi 22GS > Rogers 17GS
Steffi wks at #1 377 > Rogers 287 wks at #1
Steffi Calendar/Golden Slam
Steffi 5 YEC's < Roger 6 YEC's

Steffi-singles Record 900–115 (88.7%)
Roger singles record 853–192 (81.63%)
(harder to show since roger has played 45 more matches)

Steffi played 17 Years
Roger is at 14 Years

so in 3 years he will need to win a Calendar Golden Slam (impossible now)
Win 5 more Slams (out of 13 more chances)
Win a Calendar Slam (with 3 more chances)
and be at #1 for another 90 weeks (that is 14 weeks shy of 2 years at #1)

To knock off Fraulein Forehand

She has a calendar Golden Slam, which is different and better than a career golden slam. Agassi, Nadal and Federer have career Golden Slams.

[Alchemy-Z]

well I just see GOAT (greatest of all time) as a measurement of you vs your peers at the highest level of competition.

[Gangsta]

From those players I have seen play (much easier to do this than talk out of my rear about players I don't have much idea of), I would rate Federer as the best, Sampras a very very very close second and Nadal not too far behind. I give Nadal 2 more slams to equal Sampras. And if he gets to 3 or 4 more slams, I would put him on par with Federer, shut case and count myself lucky to have been born in this era.

[BauerAlmeida]

1-Federer
2-Agassi
3-Borg
4-Sampras
5-Nadal

But Nadal will surpass Sampras.

[Strobe Lights]

Originally Posted by Russeljones

I am sorry but if people are going to make up criteria for ranking tennis players this discussion will really go bonkers.

A Grand Slam tournament is the most difficult and prestigious prize on offer in pro tennis. How can you objectively decide to disregard it?

You may not like Nadal and Sampras but they exceed Borg's accomplishments and it's not a difficult arithmetic either.

PS: Rosewall was a factor in the Open era? This is news to me.

I never claimed Rosewall was a factor in the Open era, though he did win 4 Majors and reach a further 4 finals in it. So clearly he was. But people are including Laver in their lists near the top. He only won 5 Majors in the Open era (and one further final), even if it did include the Grand Slam. Are people seriously putting Laver above Borg and Nadal in terms of the Open era? I assumed they were including achievements before the Open era, in which case the absence of the likes of Rosewall, Gonzales and others is noticeable.

I never claimed I was disregarding the Majors. Of course they are the most important tournaments in tennis. I said I felt that looking at just the number was simplistic. If we could just use the number then wouldn't this entire discussion be pretty pointless? I am trying to look at each person's case and comparing them. The Australian was not treated like an important event, and therefore not often played, by a lot of the top players until the mid-80's due to a number of factors. So I do think that factor is important. Are we to say that Johan Kriek (2 AOs, no other Major finals and career high rank of #7) and Brian Teacher (1 AO, only one other QF at Majors and career high rank of #7) are better than Andy Murray?

I loved watching Sampras play. His win over Agassi in his last ever match to tie the US Open record will always be a favourite memory of mine. Why would you assume that I rank them based on liking the player or not? It is simply my opinion on their achievements. Borg's achievements on a wide-range of surfaces puts him ahead of Sampras for me. Borg played the Australian only once at the age of 17, so really his weakest Major was the USO, where he reached 4 finals. Sampras only reached a single SF at the French and those shortcomings on clay help Borg edge ahead in my opinion.

I can, of course, understand the argument for Sampras ahead of Borg. 3 more Majors, far more weeks at #1 (though arguments on the ranking system in the early years are well documented) and more YECs. You asked the question of how people could place Borg ahead of Nadal. I put forward the argument for why I, and others, place Borg not just ahead of Nadal but Sampras also.

[Federererer]

Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida

1-Federer
2-Agassi
3-Borg
4-Sampras
5-Nadal

But Nadal will surpass Sampras.

This is not a bad list in terms of actual player level.

[Muggie]

1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Sampras
4. Borg
5. Connors
6. Nadal
7. Lendl
8. Agassi
9. McEnroe
10. Edberg/Becker

[glazkovss]

After Fed and Rod. On par with Pete.

[Evan77]

Originally Posted by Muggie

1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Sampras
4. Borg
5. Connors
6. Nadal
7. Lendl
8. Agassi
9. McEnroe
10. Edberg/Becker

pretty good list ... my only problem with Nadal is that 7 out of his 11 slams were on clay. If I look at the quality of players, If we consider the fact that Borg retired when he was only 25 yo, he didn't want to play the AO, that he was able to dominate on both grass and clay (like nobody before or after him) etc ... I'd place him ahead of Sampras.

so, I'd say
1. Fed
2. Laver
3. Borg
4. Sampras
5. Connors
6. Nadal
7. Lendl
8. Agassi
9. JMac
10. Edberg

[merlinpinpin]

Tier 2 all-time, along with Borg, Sampras, Lendl, Agassi, Connors, and Budge (hard to rank them precisely, as there are arguments for and against all of them, but I guess Nadal, Sampras and Borg, in whatever order, should probably take the first three spots in this group, ie #6 to #8, as my tier 1 has five players). We'll know more when his career is over, of course, although tier 1 still seems pretty hard to reach from where he is now.