Are the big three the three greatest players ever?
- Thread starter weakera
- Start date
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
How about the most complete player ever? That'll do for starters.
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
I'm not putting Pete #3, I put Djokovic in the #3 slot. But your inclusion of Masters 1000's is ridiculous, nobody cares legacy-wise how many Masters 1000's anyone has. If it's important, reel off right now how many Masters 1000's Lendl, Becker, Pete, Andre or Mac has. It's also not important because Pete and Lendl went public with their distaste of having to play BO5 formats in anything other than a slam or DC. In fact, who knows how many Nadal or Federer has (or Nole), unless they're a die hard fan? Yet even casual tennis fans instantly know 20-19-17.
Sampras had 6 straight YE #1's and 7 Wimbledon titles and completely dominated his era. His slam winning rate is 14-4, which beats any of the big 3. For some tennis purists, this will elevate him above a player like Djokovic.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
How about the most complete player ever? That'll do for starters.
Pancake mix is complete too
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
Triplicate account of banned user and too obtuse to know another guy won 4 in a row twice in a calendar year.
And now you've gotten the attention you lack in your real life, so congrats!
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
No way. This is his slam final winning rate, and can't elevate him above Nole, Rafa or Federer. Do you think Federer or Nole would been better players if they wouldn't reach any RG final aside 2009 and 2016? I prefer a final than an early exit.
Is slam winning rate is 14/52(27%) and Nole's one is 17/60(28%). Rafa has 19/59(32%) and Federer 20/79(25%). And i think this is not a good metric to judge a player too.
He has 6 YE#1, impressive but that's it.
Dominate his era? In a way, yes. He's the best player for long time, but I don't know how much he was a dominant player. He has 10 GS titles in his best six-year span. Although not been YE#1 all that years, Nadal 2008-13 has the same amount, Nole and Federer has more in 2011-16 and 2004-2009. Let aside non-slam results(And I think they must be weighted, players don't play only 4 tournaments every year) and slam finals/semifinals.
7 Wimbledon titles. Not more impressive than Roger's 8 Wimbledon titles, Nole's 8 AO titles and Rafa's 12 RG titles.
He was great and, I repeat, I think he was the GOAT before big 3 era.
But comparing Nole and Sampras most important stats and achievement, Nole has these advantage:
-More than 5,5% better win %.
-Almost 3% better win % in GS.
-140+ wins.
-80+ GS wins.
-10+ more titles.
-3 more GS titles.
-23 more Masters. (It's huge IMO, but I don't think Nole need this to be clearly ahead of Sampras)
-NCYGS, Career Grand Slam and Career Golden Master.
He played against 2 out of 5(at least, but probably 2 out of 3) best players in Open Era for his entire career. Sampras best opponent in his best years is Agassi, who is somewhere in 6th-10th place in Open Era.
Sampras has one more YE#1 and 4 more weeks#1(But this one will not last with 99% probability).
Elevate him above a player like Djokovic is not being "tennis purists", it's simply groundless.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
I love how happy they all are in that video
Watched this earlier, I love this channel, they have so many random tidits
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
I'll sleep easier at night knowing this. Save your breath since I'm not the one putting Pete at #3.
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
MJ's helping me get through this lockdown, MN!I love how happy they all are in that video
Watched this earlier, I love this channel, they have so many random tidits
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
MJ's helping me get through this lockdown, MN!
Lol you can't not smile
he looked so good
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
D
Deleted member 766172
Guest
FTFY
alexio
Legend
MJ's helping me get through this lockdown, MN!
alexio
Legend
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
alexio
Legend
AceyMan
Professional
This is a great discussion. As a fan since Borg got good, I would never lay claim to knowing anything with a deep history as NID. I'd love to see some 240 fps 4K of Roscoe Tanner's serve. Or 4K of Bill Tilden wearing shorts and playing a 630cm² graphite/Twaron™ custom tuned stick.
I think wherever Fed, Rafa & Nole fall in the history books, we are lucky that they all have differing skill sets (besides being awesome at everything) and that's what makes these discussions so hard to iron out.
No doubt their "game" is industrial tool steel compared to most anyone that's played the last twenty five years. Who would I want to play for my life? I don't think there's a wrong answer, depending on the specifics. Sight unseen I'd say Rafa, but that's because picking him takes care of any fitness / stamina concerns, although I think DJ has come miles in the past few years.
I'm biased towards DJ, but am onboading as huge fan of Nadal as I catch up on the history, since I was out of the game, even as a fan, since about Agassi's peak. I have big respect for Fed, and as a strong 1HBH player, that alone should pull my strings, but he just doesn't click with me. (My biggest tennis crush is Delpo, and I bet I'm not alone. That forehand makes me cry.)
I saw Connors (still the titles king!) play live amongst McE and Lendl and Noah and Wilander. In rallies he was something else. Like playing against a howitzer. Perhaps the best lateral mover ever until Novak?—I wouldn't say that's crazy.
/Acey
I think wherever Fed, Rafa & Nole fall in the history books, we are lucky that they all have differing skill sets (besides being awesome at everything) and that's what makes these discussions so hard to iron out.
No doubt their "game" is industrial tool steel compared to most anyone that's played the last twenty five years. Who would I want to play for my life? I don't think there's a wrong answer, depending on the specifics. Sight unseen I'd say Rafa, but that's because picking him takes care of any fitness / stamina concerns, although I think DJ has come miles in the past few years.
I'm biased towards DJ, but am onboading as huge fan of Nadal as I catch up on the history, since I was out of the game, even as a fan, since about Agassi's peak. I have big respect for Fed, and as a strong 1HBH player, that alone should pull my strings, but he just doesn't click with me. (My biggest tennis crush is Delpo, and I bet I'm not alone. That forehand makes me cry.)
I saw Connors (still the titles king!) play live amongst McE and Lendl and Noah and Wilander. In rallies he was something else. Like playing against a howitzer. Perhaps the best lateral mover ever until Novak?—I wouldn't say that's crazy.
/Acey
Last edited:
Karma Tennis
Legend
Equipment has changed a lot over the years between 1969 and 2020.
Federer and Djokovic with their playing styles would easily compete with the great players of the past using small hooped wooden racquets and natural gut strings. As would players like Sampras
But several other modern players, including Nadal, would struggle. Many of them rely on main weapons that require larger hoop sizes and Poly strings. They would be neutered with traditional equipment, especially against the likes of players like Federer and Djokovic.
On the other hand, the greats of the past would probably easily adapt to the evolution of tennis equipment as long as they continued to play through the period.
ALL players are comparable in terms of physique and mental prowess and tennis skills (to a lesser extent). Everything else is opinion.
MasterZeb
Hall of Fame
Sampras is even worse
Karma Tennis
Legend
The Laver ranking is not random at all.
It simply demonstrates how hard it is to win the GRAND SLAM. None of the modern Big 3 have done it once, let alone twice. Indeed, Djokovic has held all four of the Major Titles at one time. That is a great feat in itself ... but no players other than Budge and Laver had achieved it in a single Calendar Year.
And if winning the GRAND SLAM was that easy, then why hasn't Federer, Nadal or Djokovic achieved it? The answer is simple, it is not easy to win the GRAND SLAM. It is a breathtaking sporting achievement in any era. And it is probably fair to say that if any modern player achieved it, they would instantly be labelled the GOAT and it would be very hard to argue against it.
While Laver continues to be the only male player to have two of them, and to have achieved it in the Open Era, he will always be at the top of the tree. That troubles a lot of younger fans, but that is simply too bad.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
/thread
TimHenmanATG
Hall of Fame
It's statistically highly doubtful.
In over 50 years of Open Era tennis, we just happen to have the three greatest within the last 10-15 years?
If you genuinely believe this, then you must also believe that someone like Berdych is among the GOATs, considering how close - comparatively - he was to the Big 4.
In over 50 years of Open Era tennis, we just happen to have the three greatest within the last 10-15 years?
If you genuinely believe this, then you must also believe that someone like Berdych is among the GOATs, considering how close - comparatively - he was to the Big 4.
DjokoGOAT
Semi-Pro
Laver was a great champion for his time but won 4 slams with 3/4 on grass in a less physical less athletic era with less prize money (so less talented competition)
Djokovic won 4 in a row vs peak Murray and peak Federer across 3 surfaces.
Karma Tennis
Legend
Yes. We hear this "chestnut" time and time again. Unless one was actually there one cannot begin to understand or appreciate what the players in the 1960s had to deal with.
1/ The only thing in common that the AO, Wimbledon, and the USO of the 1960 shared was that they were played on a Natural Surface. The grass courts of the three tournaments were completely different and played completely differently. The playing conditions were also completely different in terms of climate and facilities were also completely different.
2/ Athleticism has always been a part of tenis. But in modern times it has been taken to far. Playing tennis successfully in earlier eras was more a function of tennis ability, skills and mental prowess than the Bash Bash game of today. However, all Majors in the 1960s were the Best of 5 Advantage Sets. Rest assured, winning the AO or the USO required incredible athleticism and endurance. Again, if you did not actually witness those things, you would not understand.
3/ Less Prize money does not equate to less talented competition. It is actually the reverse. The Professional Tour of the 1960 was probably the most intense Tennis Competition in the history of the sport. It would be like Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray touring the world playing each other every day for weeks on end. In the 1960s, only the best players played the sport because there was little money around. Only the best players could afford to play.
The modern players compete in dumbed down playing conditions, media friendly tournaments and schedules. They fly around the world in Private Jets and stay in 5 Star Accommodation. They have access to huge teams of Doctors and Trainers. They are cow-towed to by sponsors who shower them with equipment and clothing. And the best players earn 10 times as much money in endorsements than they do in Prize Money.
Rest assured the best athletes on the planet don't waste their time pursuing Tennis. They pursue global team sports like Football (Soccer), Basketball or Cricket. That is where there is plenty of money to be made. Modern Professional Tennis is a sport for the Elite.
Or do you think Federer, Nadal and Djokovic continue to dominate tennis because they are facing tough competition? LOL.
Karma Tennis
Legend
I like your list. The only question mark is Sampras. He stands out as the only one who did not win at Roland Garros. There is no doubt in my mind that if Nadal was not so dominant on Clay, both Federer and Djokovic would have multiple RG Titles. Sampras would probably be 4/ or 5/ behind Borg.
(I know that Borg didn't win the AO, but he would have won at least three or four AOs if he had bothered to return to Melbourne. Sadly he never did.)
And it is interesting how people ignore Connors. He won an AO on grass. He won the USO on all three surfaces. He won Wimbledon. He was a great Clay Court player and probably would have won at Roland Garros if not for all the contractual problems. I would actually rate Connors on a par with Sampras in all round terms.
Karma Tennis
Legend
How about the most complete player ever? That'll do for starters.
Djokovic? Most complete?
His 1st Serve is not a huge weapon. His 2nd Serve is suspect when under pressure. And he is not a world class volleyer. He is a great player when playing in modern conditions because those conditions suit his game. He probably would have been successful in earlier eras, but not as successful as he is.
Novak's mental game is interesting at times. I think he places a lot of faith in a higher force, and that releases him to take huge risks at times when most players would not. When it pays off, it pays off Big Time. When it doesn't pay off, he seems to be able to cover that.
Novak gets the result in a lot of matches because his opponents lose them rather than him actually winning them. Pretty good place to be either way.
TennisLBC
Professional
I think the Big 3 are the three Best players to play tennis; but I don't think all three are the greatest. I think Borg was great. Laver was great. Federer is great. For me there is an It Factor that goes into being great. Some will say Nadal has that It Factor, and others will say the same goes for Djokovic. It's subjective.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
I was referring to his resume, not his game.
Karma Tennis
Legend
@Djokovic2011, no argument from me there. He has a great Tennis resume.
Novak is proof positive that you don't need prodigious talent to be successful in a Professional Sport. He succeeds because he maximises everything he has got. A lot of tennis players, especially junior tennis players, could learn a lot from that.
Not everyone can be a Federer, Nadal, Borg or Laver. But many could be a Djokovic.
EXACTLY!
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Many could be a Djokovic? That means many can win 17 Slams, win every major tennis tournament and hold all the Slams on three surfaces? I don't think so.
BorgTheGOAT
Hall of Fame
Borg went deep in all slams he played year after year. He did change his style completely between the French and Wimbledon though.
kevaninho
Hall of Fame
True. He was , for sure, one of a kind.
The Guru
Legend
What happened to no one but a fanboy puts someone with 3 less slams higher in the GOAT list lmao? Also lol at the 14-4. That speaks negatively of him not positively. Making a grand slam final is an achievement even if you lose. It's so dumb that people think losing before the final is better. Anyway, you just can't compare across eras. Priorities were too different, game was too different, technology was too different, access to the sport was too different, everything is too different. There's three GOATs. Wood Era (Borg). Graphite Era (Sampras). Poly Era (TBD).
Karma Tennis
Legend
It's not always about numbers. If it was, then Federer and Nadal are clearly superior to Novak in terms of Major Titles. Borg is clearly superior to all of them in terms of Roland Garros / Wimbledon success (Channel Slam!). Laver is clearly superior to all of them in terms of multiple GRAND SLAMS.
Novak's not a tennis prodigy in the same way that Federer and Nadal are. He is just a solid tennis player. Imho, he is the only current player still capable of winning the GRAND SLAM. And if he does, it's hard to argue against him being the GOAT.
Laver was a great player, won many Titles, won two GRAND SLAMS. But he wasn't a prodigious talent. If anything, players like Rosewall and Gonzales were more talented than Laver. Laver himself said the greatest player he ever saw was Lew Hoad.
As I often say, in a hundred years time if they are still talking about tennis ...
LAVER - Only male player in the history of the sport to win two GRAND SLAMS.
BORG - The greatest player to excel at extreme ends of the sport, Red Clay and Natural Grass. First player to sign Million Dollar endorsement deal.
FEDERER - The player with the greatest Stroke Technique of all time.
NADAL - The greatest Red Clay Court Player of all time.
DJOKOVIC - A great tennis player who went on to achieve even greater things as the 7th President of the Republic of Serbia.
Last edited:
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
I'm sorry but this is so off the wall and too out there. Laver wasn't a talent? Djokovic not a prodigy? He has more claim to being a prodigy than Federer since he did things at a younger age that Federer wasn't able to. He is still the youngest player in the OE to reach the SF at all 4 Slams and won a Slam at 20. Federer was nearly 22. He also was groomed by Gencic when he was very young, like she did Seles, because she saw him as an enormous talent. It is just ridiculous to think anyone can achieve what Djookovic or Laver did without talent.
Karma Tennis
Legend
I did not say that any of those players weren't talented.
Nick Bollettieri says the most talented player he ever saw by far was Marcelo Rios. Anyone who saw Marcelo hit would probably agree. What he could do with a tennis racquet and ball was absolutely incredible. How many titles did Rios win?
Same could be said of Lew Hoad. Clearly the most talented player of his time. Again, how successful was he?
Novak is a great player. He is a very talented player as his results show. He's the third one of the Big 3 that I would pay money to see behind Nadal and Federer. He probably wouldn't even be in my Top 10 to pay money to see. That doesn't mean I'm not a fan. He's great. And I always wish him well.
Wish he would shut up when it comes to talking about things like Vaccines atm. Stick to the tennis while he is a tennis player. When he becomes President of the Republic of Serbia, then he can start talking about other issues.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Deleted member 748597
- General Pro Player Discussion
