Who is the 2nd greatest player of the open era?

Who is the 2nd greatest player of the open era?


  • Total voters
    141

NatF

Bionic Poster
My feelings are hurt to say the least. Please explain how Sampras would be better than John Isner. Serve and volley does not work in the modern game to win championships.

Sampras had a lot more backcourt game than Isner, he had more game everywhere than Isner.
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Sampras had a lot more backcourt game than Isner, he had more game everywhere than Isner.

Isner has a great serve. However, in my view, Sampras had the greatest serve of all time, one of the greatest forehands of all time, one of the greatest net games of all time, was one of the greatest athletes and perhaps the fastest player of all time.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Isner has a great serve. However, in my view, Sampras had the greatest serve of all time, one of the greatest forehands of all time, one of the greatest net games of all time, was one of the greatest athletes and perhaps the fastest player of all time.

I think Isner's serve as a pure shot is better than Sampras', but he doesn't have the clutchness that Pete had to get him through the biggest matches. Otherwise we mostly agree.
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
I think Isner's serve as a pure shot is better than Sampras', but he doesn't have the clutchness that Pete had to get him through the biggest matches. Otherwise we mostly agree.

Isner can hit angles, because of his height, that Sampras couldn't. But, all other things considered, I think Sampras' serve was better in every respect, especially his second serve. Sampras had the most perfect serve technique I've ever seen as well.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Isner can hit angles, because of his height, that Sampras couldn't. But, all other things considered, I think Sampras' serve was better in every respect, especially his second serve. Sampras had the most perfect seve technique I've ever seen as well.

Better in what way? Not pace, not angles as you said, not percentage, Isner's second serve is the best I've ever seen - the kick he gets on that thing is ridiculous. Disguise and clutch are where I'd put Sampras ahead.
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Better in what way? Not pace, not angles as you said, not percentage, Isner's second serve is the best I've ever seen - the kick he gets on that thing is ridiculous. Disguise and clutch are where I'd put Sampras ahead.

In my view, Sampras had better average pace, disguise, accuracy, consistency, and, of course, better when it counts most.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
In my view, Sampras had better pace, disguise, accuracy, consistency, and, of course, better when it counts most.

Isner had the better first serve percentage e.g. consistency and objectively gets more average pace. Though I will admit that Sampras with modern racquets would have an insane serve.
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Isner had the better first serve percentage e.g. consistency and objectively gets more average pace. Though I will admit that Sampras with modern racquets would have an insane serve.

If Sampras' serve was measured as it is today, in my view, his average serve would be bigger than Isner's serve. His technique was the most effective I've ever seen. By consistent I meant conistently great, not just percentage of first serves in.
 

atp2015

Hall of Fame
Isner has a great serve. However, in my view, Sampras had the greatest serve of all time, one of the greatest forehands of all time, one of the greatest net games of all time, was one of the greatest athletes and perhaps the fastest player of all time.

TBH, I have seen Sampras only recently in youtube highlights (no, I'm not one of the millennials who was not around to watch when Sampras was playing - I did not watch pro tennis ). Apart from his serve and volley, nothing stands out really compared to modern hitters such as Fed, Djoker, Nadal and other top tenners. I guess he must have been great since he won so many championships - but to hard to tell from watching the highlights. His forehand looks very weird and ugly. His backhands? less said the better. I voted Borg because his game and shots look great in youtube highlights and won many titles as well although he skipped AO.
 

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
TBH, I have seen Sampras only recently in youtube highlights (no, I'm not one of the millennials who was not around to watch when Sampras was playing - I did not watch pro tennis ). Apart from his serve and volley, nothing stands out really compared to modern hitters such as Fed, Djoker, Nadal and other top tenners. I guess he must have been great since he won so many championships - but to hard to tell from watching the highlights. His forehand looks very weird and ugly. His backhands? less said the better.

@skaj believes that Sampras has a better backhand than Federer.

You need to watch some better highlights, no? Sampras was surely super.

When you have time, get started on some a full match or two...


(PS, LOL at it being labelled 1080p.)
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
TBH, I have seen Sampras only recently in youtube highlights (no, I'm not one of the millennials who was not around to watch when Sampras was playing - I did not watch pro tennis ). Apart from his serve and volley, nothing stands out really compared to modern hitters such as Fed, Djoker, Nadal and other top tenners. I guess he must have been great since he won so many championships - but to hard to tell from watching the highlights. His forehand looks very weird and ugly. His backhands? less said the better. I voted Borg because his game and shots look great in youtube highlights and won many titles as well although he skipped AO.

You saw my post to NatF, so, you know my opinion on Sampras' game. I would emphasize that, in addition to Sampras being significantly superior to Isner in every aspect of the game except serve in which he is slightly superior, it is his overall game, (including, but not limited to, his all time great serve, forehand and net game), one of the most complete and well balanced games of all time, together with his speed and athleticism, that makes Sampras a genuine GOAT candidate along with Federer, Laver, Borg and Gonzalez, in my view.

This highlight video is very good quality showing Sampras and Agassi in their prime years. Although Sampras looses this match (one of the highest levels of tennis ever played, in my view), I think you'll be able to appreciate what I'm talking about:

 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Is that what you believe?
What I believe is not the point. You said who's better is depends on certain criteria. So if a specific criteria is use to argue for Borg/Sampras/Nole/Nadal being greater than Federer, then one can have a criteria to argue for Lendl/Agassi/Becker and company are greater than Laver.
 

Zetty

Hall of Fame
Borg is just not eligible, he doesn't have the slam count so he shouldn't be considered. The only thing that can trump that is longevity at the top, which he doesn't have over any of the other guys either. Anything else is subjective.
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
What I believe is not the point. You said who's better is depends on certain criteria. So if a specific criteria is use to argue for Borg/Sampras/Nole/Nadal being greater than Federer, then one can have a criteria to argue for Lendl/Agassi/Becker and company are greater than Laver.

Your criteria is never relevant to me.
 
Z

Zara

Guest
Borg is just not eligible, he doesn't have the slam count so he shouldn't be considered. The only thing that can trump that is longevity at the top, which he doesn't have over any of the other guys either. Anything else is subjective.

What is interesting to notice is that, Borg has 3 more votes than Djokovic even though he has 1 less Slam than Djokovic. And the precise reason why people (Fedal fans mostly) are not voting for Djokovic is because he doesn't have as many Slams as Sampras, Nadal etc. It's pretty funny come to think of it. Clearly, it's a biased poll any way you look at it.

I didn't vote though. I never vote. I've never voted in any political election in my whole life - forget these vain forum polls.
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Borg is just not eligible, he doesn't have the slam count so he shouldn't be considered. The only thing that can trump that is longevity at the top, which he doesn't have over any of the other guys either. Anything else is subjective.

That is a false dichotomy. Borg's peak level of play and degree of dominance is enough to make him a genuine GOAT candidate, in my view.
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
What is interesting to notice is that, Borg has 3 more votes than Djokovic even though he has 1 less Slam than Djokovic. And the precise reason why people (Fedal fans mostly) are not voting for Djokovic is because he doesn't have as many Slams as Sampras, Nadal etc. It's pretty funny come to think of it. Clearly, it's a biased poll any way you look at it.

I didn't vote though. I never vote. I've never voted in any political election in my whole life - forget these vain forum polls.

That is probably true for some. But there are others who know enough about the game, and the history of tennis, to know that merely stacking up major titles to see whose is the highest, without considering all of the factors, is a very shallow, and quite deficient, measure of a player's greatness.
 
Last edited:
Z

Zara

Guest
This is exactly why the "GOAT" debates mean virtually nothing (other than a way to pass the time) as there is no meaningful way to compare across generations, or even spans of 15-20 years. I maintain that there is no "greatest player of all" for this reason, and because tennis still has a future (it's not an extinct sport that we can reflect on when an even more successful person could arrive on the scene years down the line).
However, I must point out that technological progress faces diminishing returns - so the advancements that were made between, say, 1995 and 2005 would have been greater than the advancements between 2005 and the present day (and that's using a relatively small time horizon). So as far as tennis goes, it's all about focusing on becoming the best in your own period/"era", i.e. doing something that ensures that you will be remembered for as long as possible in the years to come. But the concepts and terms coined by the media are "fun" for the wider public and help advertise the sport. The idea that we could be in a "Golden Era" sounds exciting, after all.

I've said it time and again, that you can never have a GOAT in any sports simply because not only the records are always meant to be broken and will be broken but also, Universe will continue to give birth to greater players as long as SpaceTime exists. So I am not sure what makes posters make such a foolish statement on a daily basis. When we say 'all time' it literally means all of past, all of now and all of future which doesn't end and won't end after Federer retires. It's like when some people debate when you say, 'I am all there is' (for example) and they argue back, 'but what about Satan or UFOs or Aliens etc.?' The statement is not saying 'all there is and then some'. The concept, I feel, is lost on too many.

I agree that the entertainment value has gone up because of things being far more global these days with FaceBook, Twitter and what not, and certain players are playing into that as well, but I am not sure how much that actually helps the sport, since it kind of hypes up the celebrity status of players and whoever is not so crazy about it (players like Sampras for example) will have to pay the price for it (Kyrgios may not be too keen on it for example). One thing I am sure of though - this will fall into its own trap; as in, whoever is playing for much greater glory in order to live forever in the minds of tennis fans and I guess they will live to a certain extent, but he/she too will be soon replaced by the one that hits the next great list.

I am not sure though why you say, 'technological progress faces diminishing returns'? Can you elaborate? Don't we have Djokovic and Murray as two of the best returners of all time along with Agassi?
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
TBH, I have seen Sampras only recently in youtube highlights...

No shame in that, because most of the posters here also weren't alive or didn't watch tennis when Pete played. That's why he's so underrated and people claiming Djoker is the superior player.

I saw Pete play live many times and he was astonishingly great. Just jaw dropping, and I say that as someone who disliked him because I was an Andre fan. Pete's serve was a cannon and his placement and second serve were off the charts. His foot speed and his running FH were just indescribable. He covered the court like a sleek tiger. This doesn't show up in highlight reels.

The three players I've seen live who were MUCH better in person than they seemed to be on TV were:

1. Andre (his FH is still the fastest I've ever seen)
2. Becker
3. Pete
--------------------

Nadal, Fed and Djoker all look great on TV and look about the same in person: great. But the guys listed above were vastly better in person. Don't know why that was, but it was!
 
Z

Zara

Guest
That is probably true for some. But there are others who know enough about the game, and the history of tennis, to know that merely stacking up major titles to see whose is the highest, without considering all of the factors, is a very shallow, and quite deficient, measure of a player's greatness.

I agree but I have seen posters and a vast majority of them going with Slam counts first while deciding 'greatness' which truly undermines past players and their abilities.
 
Z

Zara

Guest
No shame in that, because most of the posters here also weren't alive or didn't watch tennis when Pete played. That's why he's so underrated and people claiming Djoker is the superior player.

I saw Pete play live many times and he was astonishingly great. Just jaw dropping, and I say that as someone who disliked him because I was an Andre fan. Pete's serve was a cannon and his placement and second serve were off the charts. His foot speed and his running FH were just indescribable. He covered the court like a sleek tiger. This doesn't show up in highlight reels.

The three players I've seen live who were MUCH better in person than they seemed to be on TV were:

1. Andre (his FH is still the fastest I've ever seen)
2. Becker
3. Pete
--------------------

Nadal, Fed and Djoker all look great on TV and look about the same in person: great. But the guys listed above were vastly better in person. Don't know why that was, but it was!

I don't know about Becker (but I think he was quite popular both in Germany and UK) and Agassi was obviously popular worldwide (too mainstream with ghetto like persona) but when Sampras walked into a court, fans would either be completely intimated by his presence thinking their player had no chance in hell or would roar with sheer respect especially when he started dominating the tour. He had this amazing quite yet authoritative personality that drew attention (it drew mine when I first saw him) right away and you'd know you're watching someone really, really great. And every time he lost especially in a Slam, it would make such a big news as if it was simply unthinkable or unimaginable that he lost, even though he lost quite a few times (lol). I was always amazed by the media coverage every time he lost. I could tell people saw him as someone totally dominating and were really intimidated by him.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
This thread assumes Federer as the best player and it’s clearly based on his overall success. While I agree he’s the most successful player to date, I don’t agree that he’s the best player – at all. I don’t think it’s possible at all to determine that. Because in order for anyone to be the best of bests, they must be compared against each other and under circumstances / conditions that are favourable to all, and that’s just not possible. There’s the hypothetical comparisons of course but it’s going to be fully biased and far from accurate, because all the subjective elements will be left out - perhaps deliberately, while doing all the hypothetical calculations. We already know how a prime Federer fared against a prime Nadal. As to Djokovic, since he didn’t get to meet with a prime Federer, it doesn’t give us the whole picture and we are left with just as much in the dark as with Sampras, Borg etc. Yes, Federer does have one match against Sampras but I am talking about peak to peak, prime to prime. It is more than likely that the likes of Sampras, Borg etc. would raise their level against the likes of Fedrer, Nadal, Djokovic etc. had they known who they’re dealing with. That’s why the notion of Federer being the best player is utter tripe but I guess it feeds off the fans, particular kinds, who need some sort of reassurance time and again.

We already know how peak Fed fared vs prime Nadal yes. Dominated him on grass and hard courts, dominated by him on clay. Split evenly across the surfaces. Apart from that they aren't the same generation so any comparison is meaningless.

Federer also dominated prime Djokovic. 07 was peak Fed vs prime Nole. 08-09 was prime for prime. 11-12 was post prime grandpa Fed vs peak Nole. H2H is like 16-12 in those years for Fed with slam leads at RG, Wimbledon and USO. Case closed.

As for best player? Roger Federer is the best tennis player of all time. It's a shame for him the surfaces were slowed down so much, that it allowed moonballers and grinders to beat him at Wimbledon and both HC slams once past his best.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Sampras was a top player but basically a prototype and inferior version of Federer with a slightly better serve and net game (as a product of the era).

Swap the two and Fed wins like 3 CYGS and 5 of each slam in the 90s. Something like 7-5-8-7 spread which is insane.
 

Krish872007

Talk Tennis Guru
I've said it time and again, that you can never have a GOAT in any sports simply because not only the records are always meant to be broken and will be broken but also, Universe will continue to give birth to greater players as long as SpaceTime exists. So I am not sure what makes posters make such a foolish statement on a daily basis. When we say 'all time' it literally means all of past, all of now and all of future which doesn't end and won't end after Federer retires. It's like when some people debate when you say, 'I am all there is' (for example) and they argue back, 'but what about Satan or UFOs or Aliens etc.?' The statement is not saying 'all there is and then some'. The concept, I feel, is lost on too many.

I agree that the entertainment value has gone up because of things being far more global these days with FaceBook, Twitter and what not, and certain players are playing into that as well, but I am not sure how much that actually helps the sport, since it kind of hypes up the celebrity status of players and whoever is not so crazy about it (players like Sampras for example) will have to pay the price for it (Kyrgios may not be too keen on it for example). One thing I am sure of though - this will fall into its own trap; as in, whoever is playing for much greater glory in order to live forever in the minds of tennis fans and I guess they will live to a certain extent, but he/she too will be soon replaced by the one that hits the next great list.

I am not sure though why you say, 'technological progress faces diminishing returns'? Can you elaborate? Don't we have Djokovic and Murray as two of the best returners of all time along with Agassi?

Agree with this.

Re: last line - what I mean (using the returning example) is simply this; yes, they are the best returners I've seen, but while standards may continue to rise over the coming years, they will do so at a slower rate. I think racket technology has been pushed to its extremes now, leaving less scope for further improvement. As such we may end up seeing returners that are better than Murray/Novak, but the gap between these future players and Murray/Novak would be less than between "Djokorray" and guys from the 80s/90s
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Sampras was a top player but basically a prototype and inferior version of Federer with a slightly better serve and net game (as a product of the era).

Swap the two and Fed wins like 3 CYGS and 5 of each slam in the 90s. Something like 7-5-8-7 spread which is insane.

In my view, on grass and fast courts, I see Federer is a lesser version of Sampras. I don't know how many major titles Fed would have won in the 90's with the Wilson Pro Staff graphite, but, I don't think it would be 18.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
In my view, on grass and fast courts, I see Federer is a lesser version of Sampras. I don't know how many major titles Fed would have won in the 90's with the Wilson Pro Staff graphite, but, I don't think it would be 18.

I think he would dominate all 4 slams with no Nadal blocking him at RG.

Sampras has a marginally better serve and net game. Fed is superior everywhere else imo.
 

timnz

Legend
TBH, I have seen Sampras only recently in youtube highlights (no, I'm not one of the millennials who was not around to watch when Sampras was playing - I did not watch pro tennis ). Apart from his serve and volley, nothing stands out really compared to modern hitters such as Fed, Djoker, Nadal and other top tenners. I guess he must have been great since he won so many championships - but to hard to tell from watching the highlights. His forehand looks very weird and ugly. His backhands? less said the better. I voted Borg because his game and shots look great in youtube highlights and won many titles as well although he skipped AO.
I would highly recommend that you search on Youtube for Sampras vs Becker at the Season end finals 1996. Also look for Sampras vs Agassi Cincinatti 1999. In both these matches you will see what everyone is talking about.
 

Nadalgaenger

G.O.A.T.
Isner has a great serve. However, in my view, Sampras had the greatest serve of all time, one of the greatest forehands of all time, one of the greatest net games of all time, was one of the greatest athletes and perhaps the fastest player of all time.

The Isner serve is more dominant than the Sampras serve. Same for Karlovic and possibly Raonic and Roddick.

Sampras is still an unquestionable ATG and I'd agree with most of what you say (except the speed part). He was an excellent athlete and made some beautiful forehands on the run but he isn't in the elite movers category imo.
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
The Isner serve is more dominant than the Sampras serve. Same for Karlovic and possibly Raonic and Roddick.

Sampras is still an unquestionable ATG and I'd agree with most of what you say (except the speed part). He was an excellent athlete and made some beautiful forehands on the run but he isn't in the elite movers category imo.

I don't know what your definition of dominant is. In my view, Sampras had the greater serve than any of them. Further, according to Pat Etcheberry, Pete Sampras was athletically equal to Charles Woodson. If so, Sampras was probably the fastest tennis player who ever played.
 

spirit95

Professional
How can Nadal or Djokovic be the second greatest of all time when they weren't even the greatest of their own era
 
once again the sheer ignorance regarding Borg never fails to amaze.

We have to be careful about being so harsh when it comes to history. People and tennis fans born after 1975 would have little idea about how good Borg (and guys like McEnroe and Connors for that matter) was as a tennis player. You can say the same thing for people born after 1965 who would know little about Laver.

Yes, we do have a lot of highlight reels and even full matches of these guys but they often don't really do the players justice.

There were a lot of great tennis players going around in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. The 1960s and 70s were also eras of incredible change for the Sport as well.

The modern players have a lot to be thankful for. And it is always nice when you see some of the top players continue to revere and pay homage to the ones that went before them. I'm reminded of that famous photograph taken at Wimbledon of Rod, Bjorn, Pete and Rog. The tradition continues and long may it do so.
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
We have to be careful about being so harsh when it comes to history. People and tennis fans born after 1975 would have little idea about how good Borg (and guys like McEnroe and Connors for that matter) was as a tennis player. You can say the same thing for people born after 1965 who would know little about Laver.

Yes, we do have a lot of highlight reels and even full matches of these guys but they often don't really do the players justice.

There were a lot of great tennis players going around in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. The 1960s and 70s were also eras of incredible change for the Sport as well.

The modern players have a lot to be thankful for. And it is always nice when you see some of the top players continue to revere and pay homage to the ones that went before them. I'm reminded of that famous photograph taken at Wimbledon of Rod, Bjorn, Pete and Rog. The tradition continues and long may it do so.
I wasn't around to watch Borg either but I've still learned to appreciate his greatness. I'm not saying people have to study all the past greats, but if you are going to participate in these type of discussions and talk about those players you have to know what you're talking about besides Wikipedia.
 

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
I wasn't around to watch Borg either but I've still learned to appreciate his greatness. I'm not saying people have to study all the past greats, but if you are going to participate in these type of discussions and talk about those players you have to know what you're talking about besides Wikipedia.

Agree, completely. Sadly, also beating our heads against a brick wall - the majority or posters will be of the type you describe.


Yes, we do have a lot of highlight reels and even full matches of these guys but they often don't really do the players justice.

Agree.

Having watched the videos of those who were before my time, I feel it'd be ridiculous of me to think I knew their game (in the way I know the games of those I've watched and followed in real time)

I speculate that even those who were around for past periods - be it 80s and especially 70s and before - don't know the players of their generation as well as they do the moderns. Not a whole lot of TV coverage back then(?)

Just how much of Rod Laver did somebody who was around in 69 actually see of him? Or Connors and Borg? Not sure, but guessing it isn't on par with how much somebody today can watch their present favourites
 

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
...How about Borg vs Nadal?

There was a Borg-Nadal thread recently

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/nadal-vs-borg-who-is-the-greater-player.587183/

Fairly predictable result to the poll, but I was glad to see Borg get a lot of support - more than I expected

My own post on the matter -


"I think Borg had a significantly bigger impact.

Borg's dominant phase is more impressive and though Nadal had much less scope to showcase it, Borg's versatility is far better (downright mind boggling, i'd say)

In terms of greatness though, I'd pick Nadal, mostly because of Borg's early retirement vs Nadal fighting on - especially given how tough the competition was.

Nadal came back to regain the year end world #1 rankings from Roger Federer and Nova Djokovic. Borg (for whatever reason) headed for the hills as soon as he just barely slipped to #2

Borg's reputation is well deserved, but IMO, generally unfairly enhanced by his untimely retirement"
 

6august

Hall of Fame
There was a Borg-Nadal thread recently

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/nadal-vs-borg-who-is-the-greater-player.587183/

Fairly predictable result to the poll, but I was glad to see Borg get a lot of support - more than I expected

My own post on the matter -


"I think Borg had a significantly bigger impact.

Borg's dominant phase is more impressive and though Nadal had much less scope to showcase it, Borg's versatility is far better (downright mind boggling, i'd say)

In terms of greatness though, I'd pick Nadal, mostly because of Borg's early retirement vs Nadal fighting on - especially given how tough the competition was.

Nadal came back to regain the year end world #1 rankings from Roger Federer and Nova Djokovic. Borg (for whatever reason) headed for the hills as soon as he just barely slipped to #2

Borg's reputation is well deserved, but IMO, generally unfairly enhanced by his untimely retirement"

Thank you, I just want to point out the double-standard in that case.

Is Slam count everything, or not? Is there a group of commonly-accepted or standardized criteria to judge someone is better than someone? I don't know.

Though Djokovic and Sampras are my favorites, my vote goes to the 3rd choice: None of the above ~ All of them.
 

spirit95

Professional
Because they were playing in same era as the GOAT. Pretty simple matter.

Ridiculous. Only way of assessing greatness between eras is comparing with peers. Sampras dominating his competition winning almost twice as many slams as his nearest rival is clearly greater than two players who are tied for 2nd in their own era. Borg also
 
Ridiculous. Only way of assessing greatness between eras is comparing with peers.

Do you give any credence to the opinions of the "Old Greats" regarding players that succeed them?

Laver and Borg are pretty clear about who they think are the Greatest. Of course, their humility prevents them from including themselves in any comparison. But by the same token I think Laver and Borg are very sincere when it comes to this sort of discussion. I can't really say the same about most of the top guys who have followed them though.
 
Top