Are the big three the three greatest players ever?

[weakera]

What say you?

 

[Biotic]

That was edited poorly...

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

Davis Cup

 

[NatF]

No.

They're in the mix for sure but whatever order you have them in I think you still have to give some room for considering past greats like Laver, Pancho, Rosewall, Tilden etc...for what they did in their own era's.

 

[weakera]

That was edited poorly...

It was a top result for the big three on google images.

 

[Centrius]

My top 5(Open Era):

Federer
Djokovic
Sampras
Nadal
Borg

 

[weakera]

My top 5(Open Era):

Federer
Djokovic
Sampras
Nadal
Borg

Good troll attempt bro

 

[Backspin1183]

I understand about the Olympics but Davis Cup, a team event? Lol

 

[Centrius]

Good troll attempt bro

Did you see emoticons? I'm serious.

 

[Lew II]

It was a top result for the big three on google images.

Better not use it, it's not even updated.

 

[weakera]

Did you see emoticons? I'm serious.

Sure you are

 

[Backspin1183]

And no, they aren't the top 3 all time. I refuse to accept three players from the same era to be the best of all time.

 

[weakera]

Better not use it, it's not even updated.

I didn't think the only thing people would be reacting to is the image lol, just threw it in for the lulz

 

[Hitman]

Where as it can be argued whether they are the three greatest ever, one thing that cannot be argued is that they had the greatest three way rivalry of all time due to the sheer amount of matches they have had against each other.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Actually, I think Rafa, counting 2019, was part of 5 DC-winning teams, but I would not mix a team stat with the others, or weigh each big title the same.

That chart aside, of course, I think they are the three greatest of the Open Era, great as Sampras, Borg and others were, I think they've each surpassed them for a while now.

I've drawn a line at those who played entirely in the OE. Although things are a lot different than 52 years ago, comparing to Laver, Rosewall (and take your pick of those contemporaneous to Rocket and Muscles or before them...Pancho, Tilden, mainly) is like comparing apples and spaghetti.

 

[Hitman]

Actually, I think Rafa, counting 2019, was part of 5 DC-winning teams, but I would not mix a team stat with the others, or weigh each big title the same.

That chart aside, of course, I think they are the three greatest of the Open Era, great as Sampras, Borg and others were, I think they've each surpassed them for a while now.

I've drawn a line at those who played entirely in the OE. Although things are a lot different than 52 years ago, comparing to Laver, Rosewall (and take your pick of those contemporaneous to Rocket and Muscles or before them...Pancho, Tilden, mainly) is like comparing apples and spaghetti.

The obvious thing missing is the fact that Djokovic's slam count is incorrect.

 

[Eren]

Why is Nadal's 19 in yellow lol? He is not even the leader.

Answer to the question posed, probably not.

 

[alexio]

The obvious thing missing is the fact that Djokovic's slam count is incorrect.

what's the difference 16 or 17, not a big deal at all, it only matters that he's still the 3rd

 

[zagor]

No, I don't believe they are. It's a mix of circumstances and conditions that allows them to amass such insane numbers. In terms of tennis ability, I don't think they're really above past greats like Sampras or Borg for example..

 

[RaulRamirez]

The obvious thing missing is the fact that Djokovic's slam count is incorrect.

We all know these numbers so well, I didn't even look there. I guess this chart was made after the 2019 US Open and prior to the revamped DC, and of course AO20.

 

[JoshuaPim]

Well the sport is played on different surfaces y'all know so it's not quite as simple as 'the 3 greatest ever... Samp would beat Nad on grass and Nad would beat Samp on clay after all...

 

[Deleted member 748597]

Ned isn't top 3 all time.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Nope. Laver still up there for me.

 

[junior74]

Karlovic, Isner and Opelka are the three greatest

I sorry

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Yeah, they are obviously in the conversation. But I don't know.

 

[joe sch]

No.

They're in the mix for sure but whatever order you have them in I think you still have to give some room for considering past greats like Laver, Pancho, Rosewall, Tilden etc...for what they did in their own era's.

They should not be compared to the greats listed above. Greatest Of Era (GOA) is really the worthwhile debate, Not GOAT.
The @weakera thread comparision for these three GOA is excellent start for this debate but make sure its up to date.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Of course not. There's the Old Three of Gonzales-Rosewall-Laver too, and earlier, Tilden who cannot be adequately rated due to changing circumstances, but he was the first male star who led the charge of professionalising tennis, that's a grand role.

 

[Karma Tennis]

Depends what you mean by "Greatest".

To me "Greatest" is not simply about match results, it is something way beyond that. The "Greatest" players actually transcend the sport ...

My Male Player list is ...

Tildon - Basically introduced Tennis to the world as an Entertainment.
Kramer - Was a primary driver in turning the sport of Tennis into a Profession for the most talented and gifted players.
Laver - Transcended the sport by achieving something no other player in history has done by winning two GRAND SLAMS.
Borg - The Rock Star who dragged the sport kicking and screaming into the 20th Century and made it popular with young people again.
Federer - Like Borg, just when tennis was in decline, he took the sport by storm and made it relevant again to the general population.

(And a very special mention to Arthur Ashe who showed that Tennis was a sport for all people.)

Still working on the Female Player list but would probably include Lenglen, Smith-Court, Jean-King, Navratilova, Graf, and Serena.

 

[EdSWright]

What say you?

Federer has ceded 36 Slam titles to his main rivals, Nadal 37, Djokovic 39. They don't seem so great from that perspective.

 

[Jonesy]

Murray.

 

[Fedr and three others]

Federer Nadal and Murray are my top 3 for greatest of all time.

 

[FedeRadi]

Pre-Open Era players aren't comparable IMO.

In Open Era they clearly are.

 

[6august]

My heart says Pete always has a seat among the greatest.

And yes, Laver Rosewall Gonzalez Tilden...

It's better to pick 10 greatest with no particular order.

 

[game..set..match]

can't be the goat with 0 atp tour final titles.

 

[RaulRamirez]

can't be the goat with 0 atp tour final titles.

So, not Top 3, based solely on lack of YEC titles? Seems quite arbitrary.

 

[King No1e]

No, they're not.
IMO Laver is still the GOAT and Rosewall is somewhere between Fed and Djokodal. Well past Sampras/Borg territory, though.

 

[Third Serve]

Davis Cup lmao

 

[daggerman]

The real answer is probably that the question is unanswerable. It's not only true that technology and playing styles have changed in a way that makes comparison across eras very difficult, but the rubric with which we evaluate player achievement has also changed. Currently we care about total slams, rankings and, to a lesser extent, Masters 1000s. In the 60s, those weren't the standards by which players were measured, so players naturally had different sets of priorities. If the tours were to recognize a 5th grand slam some time in the future, how could we meaningfully compare future players' accomplishments to their predecessors?

The truth is there doesn't need to be a "greatest" player ever. Who's the greatest architect ever? Well, does it even make sense to compare an ancient Greek architect to, say, Frank Lloyd Wright? The disparate material conditions within each architect is situated renders the question uninteresting.

 

[Yugram]

Nadal first, Djokovic second and Federer somewhere in the mix with other greats, but I doubt he’s 3rd.

 

[Third Serve]

Nadal first, Djokovic second and Federer somewhere in the mix with other greats, but I doubt he’s 3rd.

hmm

 

[Yugram]

hmm

The context of achievements is quite crucial in such discussion.

 

[Third Serve]

The context of achievements is quite crucial in such discussion.

True enough, but this context is often arbitrarily defined and selectively applied.

 

[game..set..match]

So, not Top 3, based solely on lack of YEC titles? Seems quite arbitrary.

he can and should be top 3 with 19 slams and the most masters titles, but not the goat. how could you not win a single atp finals and be considered the best ever? a tournament like that should not be disregarded like its a 250 or something.

 

[ForehandRF]

Federer has ceded 36 Slam titles to his main rivals, Nadal 37, Djokovic 39. They don't seem so great from that perspective.

So, at least one of them should have dominated much more ?

 

[BeatlesFan]

The big three have the greatest tennis resumes but many still would put Laver as #2 or Sampras as #3, despite having less slams.

 

[BeatlesFan]

That's exactly the order based on the slam count.It can't get more precise than that, I have to admitt

Some people are emotionally/intellectually incapable of being impartial. Nobody but a fan boy puts someone with 17 slams over 20. But Djokovic fans were proclaiming him GOAT when he had 14 slams, so logic isn't relevant for the fringe elements in that fan base.

 

[FedeRadi]

The big three have the greatest tennis resumes but many still would put Laver as #2 or Sampras as #3, despite having less slams.

If you weight pre-Open Era records you can put some players ahead of big 3, they are uncomparable. So it's ok for Laver.

But put Sampras 3rd is crazy.
He has less GS, 1/3 of the Masters 1000, way lower win %, lesser longevity, played in not-so-hard 90s(Agassi is great, but not Big 3's level and neither Borg's or Lendl's one) , never win the French Open. Yes, he has a lot of #1 related records and 5 WTFs, but, aside Nadal, even that is comparable with other 2.
I think he was the Open Era GOAT before Big 3, but can't make a case for him ahead of any of the 3 now. Only a Rafa's hater who thinks that clay tennis is worth nothing can maybe support this theory, but that's troll level.

I can, maybe, see a case for Borg. I've him behind (not only) Sampras but if you weight peak level a lot, I can see it. I strongly disagree however.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Of course not. There's the Old Three of Gonzales-Rosewall-Laver too, and earlier, Tilden who cannot be adequately rated due to changing circumstances, but he was the first male star who led the charge of professionalising tennis, that's a grand role.

Standard post by someone who wants to appear an authority on tennis history.

No way are a man who couldn't win a Wimbledon final in five attempts (Rosewall), a man incapable of winning big on clay (your idol, Gonzales) or a man who faced weak competition and was made to look sub-standard when the Musketeers came on the scene (Tilden) greater than the Big 3.

Only Laver can compare.

I know you have to keep up the pretence that you're an intellectual though, so will probably quote Sartre back at me to tell why I'm wrong, rather than debating my points. The internet allows you the choice of backing off when you know you're wrong.

 

[mattennis]

NO

 

[EdSWright]

So, at least one of them should have dominated much more ?

It’s about a 25% strike rate of winning a Slam. I don’t see domination in that, and there’s little point quibbling about the margins of such a strike rate. In saying that, some have had prolonged periods of being almost unbeatable.