All Time Great

James P

Hall of Fame
When you talk about the GOAT, it's very clearly a Slam heavy argument. I don't think there's any problem with this as they are clearly the most important part of a resume. When it comes to labeling players "All Time Great," what are the factors and perhaps cut off points in whom you think fits that bill?

Is a 3-slam winner like Wawrinka an ATG?
Is a former #1, but 0-slam winner like Rios an ATG?
Do Masters titles, WTF, and/or OG factor in?
What are the factors you think makes an ATG an ATG?
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
The opinion of the majority is not an indicative of truth.
What do you think is the truth though? It may not be fair but most people view Wimbledon as the wildcard or the bonus. Becker has 3 and Wilander has none, so Becker's career is seen as better with one less Slam. Plus he has 3 WTFs to Wilander's 0, and 5 more Masters titles. Would you take Wilander's career over Becker's even though he has one more Slam but missing the other things?
 

BeatlesFan

Talk Tennis Guru
It's widely accepted that Edberg/Wilander/Becker's career are the cut-off for an ATG.
I agree. Becker and Edberg both have 6 slams and without any question are ATG's. No way are Murray or Stan remotely ATG's with three slams, as has been said here 1 trillion times in the past. And no, OGM's don't suddenly elevate a guy with 3 slams to ATG status.

ATG's in the Open era are easy to list, since the list is so small, only 13 guys on it.

Laver
Borg
Mac
Connors
Lendl
Pete
Andre
Edberg
Becker
Wilander
Fed
Rafa
Novak
 
Generally, 5+ slams is a sure criterion.
5 Slams and up for me. I don’t think there’s a single player that has ever only won five Slams so right now, Edberg’s career is the cutoff for ATGs.
Newcombe won 5 OE slams. He's a difficult case to evaluate though since 2 of those slams were rundown AOs but the '75 edition had him beat Connors in the final and he also won 2 amateur slams before OE, and missing two Wimbledons for external reasons (1972 banned for WCT participation, 1973 boycott) robbed him of a good chance to win more since he was the 1970-71 champ. Early Open Era was quite the mess.
 
Honestly, Murray's stats are ATG-worthy apart from # of Slam titles, but that last bit ruins everything, moreso the fact that outside of 2012-13 he kept getting pwned in BO5 by the ATGs of his/our time; one memorable win was his breakthrough in 2008 USO SF, but the crushing final losses dampens it. The rest, other than beating semi-injured Nadal in 2010 AO, was all straight sets or not entirely competitive four sets, only exception being 2015 RG SF which still ended with a blitz fifth set (6-1).
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
Generally, 5+ slams is a sure criterion.


Newcombe won 5 OE slams. He's a difficult case to evaluate though since 2 of those slams were rundown AOs but the '75 edition had him beat Connors in the final and he also won 2 amateur slams before OE, and missing two Wimbledons for external reasons (1972 banned for WCT participation, 1973 boycott) robbed him of a good chance to win more since he was the 1970-71 champ. Early Open Era was quite the mess.
Perhaps not as much a mess as the division of the tour into pro and amateur, but you’re definitely correct.
 

Sabrina

Semi-Pro
Honestly, Murray's stats are ATG-worthy apart from # of Slam titles, but that last bit ruins everything, moreso the fact that outside of 2012-13 he kept getting pwned in BO5 by the ATGs of his/our time; one memorable win was his breakthrough in 2008 USO SF, but the crushing final losses dampens it. The rest, other than beating semi-injured Nadal in 2010 AO, was all straight sets or not entirely competitive four sets, only exception being 2015 RG SF which still ended with a blitz fifth set (6-1).
Murray was basically a point away from winning his Ao 2012 SF against Nole though. IMO it was his best performance against big 3 in his losing matches
 
Perhaps not as much a mess as the division of the tour into pro and amateur, but you’re definitely correct.
Well, really nobody except history buffs is concerned with the ATGs before Open Era. In those times, there's no possible clear line separating all-time greats from 'merely' great players, I'm sure the resident buffs could have a heated debate over whether someone like Perry was an ATG. I like reading up on history but pre-OE is way too chaotic to navigate smoothly, so I don't know as much. Every fan should know the GOATs of the time in Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall and Laver (Rod straddling both eras), anything more is a bonus I guess.
 

Sport

Legend
There is no solid reason to consIder Becker and Edberg ATGs, but not Murray. Neither Becker nor Edberg appear in top 10 GOAT discussions nor does Murray.

To be an ATP you need to have as many Slams won as some player who is in the top 10 GOAT debate. McEnroe is typically in the top 10 GOAT debate with 7 Slams.

That is the reason why 7 Slams is the ATG criterion.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Honestly, Murray's stats are ATG-worthy apart from # of Slam titles, but that last bit ruins everything, moreso the fact that outside of 2012-13 he kept getting pwned in BO5 by the ATGs of his/our time; one memorable win was his breakthrough in 2008 USO SF, but the crushing final losses dampens it. The rest, other than beating semi-injured Nadal in 2010 AO, was all straight sets or not entirely competitive four sets, only exception being 2015 RG SF which still ended with a blitz fifth set (6-1).
Murray is a special case. Yes, his Slam count is low compared to others usually thought of as ATGs but the range of his achievements sets him apart from anybody else with a similar Slam count especially guys like Wawrinka who achieved nothing else. I believe whole career achievements should be factored in, not just the Slam count, and its no good anybody trying to dismiss other types of achievements just because it doesn't suit their argument. Being ranked #1 for double digit weeks as well as achieving Y/E #1 and winning every single type of major tennis title (some of them in double digit figures too) is not something any other player has ever achieved outside the usually accepted ATG ranks.
 

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
Plus honestly Murray would have likely lost in the final to Nadal anyway. He had lost to Nadal in the last 2 slams in 4 sets, so not sure exactly why this would be any different. Despite that Nadal's performance in the final vs Djokovic was kind of subpar for him, he still nearly was in winning position at one point (up 4-2 vs in the 5th vs the AO GOAT) so while it wasn't great it obviously wasn't that horrible. Murray also would have likely been tired after his effort taking down Djokovic, and while he is quite fit his nickname is not Ultron like Djokovic.
Nadal was only better in AO 2009 than in AO 2012. AO 2012 was his 2nd best AO. I wouldn’t call Nadal subpar the final. Djokovic was not at his AO11 level but still played well and it was a great match.
 
Murray is a special case. Yes, his Slam count is low compared to others usually thought of as ATGs but the range of his achievements sets him apart from anybody else with a similar Slam count especially guys like Wawrinka who achieved nothing else. I believe whole career achievements should be factored in, not just the Slam count, and its no good anybody trying to dismiss other types of achievements just because it doesn't suit their argument. Being ranked #1 for double digit weeks as well as achieving Y/E #1 and winning every single type of major tennis title (some of them in double digit figures too) is not something any other player has ever achieved outside the usually accepted ATG ranks.
Murray is in the special sub-ATG group with Courier as his only peer in OE (alternatively, Courier and Newcombe if you don't consider the latter ATG).
 

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
Nadal had 71 unforced errors in the final. Some of that probably being Djokovic, but not all of it for sure. As for AO 2012 being only worse than AO 2009 I agree taking into account the whole event but he played much better in both the quarters vs Berdych and semis vs Federer than finals vs Djokovic IMO. I do think Fed got unlucky here, had Nadal played the semis as he did the final then Federer probably would have won his way into the final, and based on some of his 2011 matches vs Djokovic he had a 40% shot or so.
Yeah I agree. The Berdych/Federer matches were among his best on slow HC. Returned better.
I agree the final wasn’t his best but it was still a high level and a great match. The courts were slower than year so it kinda can skew the stars and the match was nearly 6 hours.
 

duaneeo

Hall of Fame
Different strokes for different folks, and I'm enjoying all of the contributions in this thread, but for me, Murray is clearly an ATG. Which indicates the 5+ Slam rule is flawed, at least from my point of view.
Exactly, and that's because there is no "rule" for what makes an ATG. It's purely subjective.
 

The Guru

Rookie
Different strokes for different folks, and I'm enjoying all of the contributions in this thread, but for me, Murray is clearly an ATG. Which indicates the 5+ Slam rule is flawed, at least from my point of view.
5+ slams is the rule Murray is the exception
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
So far with careers ongoing and Fed 5 / 6 years older than Rafa / Djoker respectively:

1. Nadal on clay (12 slams, 26 M1000) - God level
2. Federer on hard (11 slams, 6 WTF, 22 M1000) - GOAT conversation level
3. Djokovic on hard (10 slams, 5 WTF, 25 M1000) - GOAT conversation level
4. Federer on grass (8 slams) - GOAT conversation level
5. Djokovic on grass (5 slams) - ATG level
6. Nadal on hard (5 slams, 9 M1000) - ATG level

Not making the ATG cut:
7. Djokovic on clay (1 slam, 8 M1000)
8. Federer on clay (1 slam, 6 M1000)
9. Nadal on grass (2 slams)
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
6 Slams, must be #1, would like you to have a mutli Slam season but it never happened for Edberg and I see him as an ATG, so it's not a deal breaker. It is a bonus though as well the YE #1. Masters and WTF are important as well.
Edberg defended a slam though, which is no small feat.

Courier is the only non-ATG player who managed to defend a slam as far as I know. So this is an ATG-only accomplishment mostly.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Edberg defended a slam though, which is no small feat.

Courier is the only non-ATG player who managed to defend a slam as far as I know. So this is an ATG-only accomplishment mostly.
How about?

Australian Open:

Vilas (1978-9)
Kriek (1981-2)

Roland Garros:

Kodes (1970-1)
Bruguera (1993-4)
Kuerten (2000-1)

US Open:

Rafter (1997-8)
 
Last edited:

Chadalina

Legend
When you talk about the GOAT, it's very clearly a Slam heavy argument. I don't think there's any problem with this as they are clearly the most important part of a resume. When it comes to labeling players "All Time Great," what are the factors and perhaps cut off points in whom you think fits that bill?

Is a 3-slam winner like Wawrinka an ATG?
Is a former #1, but 0-slam winner like Rios an ATG?
Do Masters titles, WTF, and/or OG factor in?
What are the factors you think makes an ATG an ATG?
Non clay titles won are what i look at.

I put most emphasis on matches won. Martina navratalova has 2189 professional singles and doubles matches (not sure if it counts her mixed results). She is the true goat overall

For men i like Fed because he has won so many more times than the others, 1235. Also has a doubles gold medal
 

James P

Hall of Fame
Non clay titles won are what i look at.

I put most emphasis on matches won. Martina navratalova has 2189 professional singles and doubles matches (not sure if it counts her mixed results). She is the true goat overall

For men i like Fed because he has won so many more times than the others, 1235. Also has a doubles gold medal
This isn't another GOAT thread. This is an ATG thread and how you come to the conclusion that these 8-25 players (however you define it) are all time greats.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Murray was basically a point away from winning his Ao 2012 SF against Nole though. IMO it was his best performance against big 3 in his losing matches
He would have got creamed by Nadal in the final, creating a similar scenario to 2008 USO.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Murray is a special case. Yes, his Slam count is low compared to others usually thought of as ATGs but the range of his achievements sets him apart from anybody else with a similar Slam count especially guys like Wawrinka who achieved nothing else. I believe whole career achievements should be factored in, not just the Slam count, and its no good anybody trying to dismiss other types of achievements just because it doesn't suit their argument. Being ranked #1 for double digit weeks as well as achieving Y/E #1 and winning every single type of major tennis title (some of them in double digit figures too) is not something any other player has ever achieved outside the usually accepted ATG ranks.
3 slams in not enough though. And things would be different if he actually put in a better effort in most of those slam semis/finals against the Big 3.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Different strokes for different folks, and I'm enjoying all of the contributions in this thread, but for me, Murray is clearly an ATG. Which indicates the 5+ Slam rule is flawed, at least from my point of view.
It's not flawed. Murray played poorly in most of his slam finals/semis against the Big 3. If he were better, he would have 5 slams to his name. It is that simple.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
So far with careers ongoing and Fed 5 / 6 years older than Rafa / Djoker respectively:

1. Nadal on clay (12 slams, 26 M1000) - God level
2. Federer on hard (11 slams, 6 WTF, 22 M1000) - GOAT conversation level
3. Djokovic on hard (10 slams, 5 WTF, 25 M1000) - GOAT conversation level
4. Federer on grass (8 slams) - GOAT conversation level
5. Djokovic on grass (5 slams) - ATG level
6. Nadal on hard (5 slams, 9 M1000) - ATG level

Not making the ATG cut:
7. Djokovic on clay (1 slam, 8 M1000)
8. Federer on clay (1 slam, 6 M1000)
9. Nadal on grass (2 slams)
You do realize the age difference have benefitted Rafole more than Fed, right?
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
How about?

Australian Open:

Vilas (1978-9)
Kriek (1981-2)

Roland Garros:

Kodes (1970-1)
Bruguera (1993-4)
Kuerten (2000-1)

US Open:

Rafter (1997-8)
I stand corrected ;)

Still every ATG managed to eithervrecord a multi slam season or defend a slam title. Murray has managed neither.
 

Xavier G

Professional
Becker's an ATG for me. He won Wimbledon aged 17 coming out of nowhere and he retained it the following year, just to prove it wasn't a fluke. It's not just about the number of Slams, though and 6 is a nice total.
Wilander won the French at 17 coming out of nowhere, another ATG feat. He won Slams on grass, clay and hard courts.
Edberg won Wimbledon, the US Open and the Australian Open each on two occasions and made the French final. That's enough for me.
Andy Murray is borderline in the ATG stakes, imo. He's a two tine Wimbledon champion, a US Open champ, a YEC winner and a former world no.1 with two Olympic singles gold medals, up against 3 of the greatest players ever. He generally lost to them in the Slams. If someone calls him an ATG, I wouldn't quibble too much, likewise if they don't.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Becker's an ATG for me. He won Wimbledon aged 17 coming out of nowhere and he retained it the following year, just to prove it wasn't a fluke. It's not just about the number of Slams, though and 6 is a nice total.
Wilander won the French at 17 coming out of nowhere, another ATG feat. He won Slams on grass, clay and hard courts.
Edberg won Wimbledon, the US Open and the Australian Open each on two occasions and made the French final. That's enough for me.
Andy Murray is borderline in the ATG stakes, imo. He's a two tine Wimbledon champion, a US Open champ, a YEC winner and a former world no.1 with two Olympic singles gold medals, up against 3 of the greatest players ever. He generally lost to them in the Slams. If someone calls him an ATG, I wouldn't quibble too much, likewise if they don't.
Murray in my view is not an ATG, but not just a regular multi-slam champ either.

He is a great player, but not a strong era player, if you will.

He is Courier level, but not Becker/Edberg level.

A multi slam season and/or a successful slam defense would have helped his cause. And better performances in most of his slam semis/finals too.

He is better than every 1-4 slam champs though.
 
Top