John McEnroe provides updated version of rankings: Why Roger Federer Still Greatest of All Time

[tennisaddict]

http://www.gamenguide.com/articles/...-roger-federer-still-greatest-of-all-time.htm

Tennis legend John McEnroe shared his thought on the legacy of Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, as arguably two best tennis players enter the end game of their respective Hall of Fame careers.

In a radio interview with WFAN host Marc Malusis on Tuesday in New York City via Tennis Today, McEnroe provided his updated version of tennis All-Time rankings.

For McEnroe, Federer is still the greatest tennis player of all time largely because of the body of work he had accomplished in his career. McEnroe pointed out the Swiss Master's longevity and consistency over the span of his pro career makes him the ultimate tennis player.

As far Nadal is concerned, McEnroe believes nobody in the history of tennis who matches up well with Federer. He thinks Nadal is the waterloo to Federer's greatness, although injuries and inconsistencies the last 2-3 years certainly hurt his claim as the G.O.AT.

"Federer overall, consistency-wise, is the best player ever," McEnroe told WFAN host Marc Malusis in a radio interview on Tuesday in New York City. "If you put Nadal, who is to me, the other guy. Those two if they played one-on-one and both guys were playing their best, I would say Nadal matches up better with Federer.

Knowing that Federer and Nadal may have at least 2 years left in their careers, McEnroe considers Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic as the top-2 players in the world right now. He added that Djokovic's accomplishment the last 4 years pushed him to top-5 all time. However, like Murray, the American predicts Djokovic to have 2 good years left in him before he hits the wall.

"There's a void that's about to occur because of what's happened with (Roger) Federer and (Rafael) Nadal," McEnroe told Malusis. "I mean, they're at the end, right? You can't imagine them going on more than a year or two. (Novak) Djokovic (and Andy) Murray are the two best, but they're not getting younger. I know 29 sounds young, but they're going to have another couple years, you anticipate."

 

[6august]

Rod Laver doesn't like this.

 

[6august]

Roger is the best and Nadal is the 2nd best cause he matches up better with the best? Can't understand his guy's logic.

He can't be serious.

Again, top 8 Open-era: Federer - Sampras - Djokovic - Nadal - Borg - Lendl - Agassi - Connors.

 

[Cup8489]

Roger is the best and Nadal is the 2nd best cause he matches up better with the best? Can't understand his guy's logic.

He can't be serious.

Again, top 8 Open-era: Federer - Sampras - Djokovic - Nadal - Borg - Lendl - Agassi - Connors.

In your opinion. He believes Nadal is second because he's second all time on slam count, plus the winning h2h against Federer elevates him above Sampras. Not sure what's hard to understand about that.

 

[6august]

In your opinion. He believes Nadal is second because he's second all time on slam count, plus the winning h2h against Federer elevates him above Sampras. Not sure what's hard to understand about that.

Not sure what's hard to understand in my post.

You'd better read the article again. It didn't say anything about Sampras, Slam-count... it said Fedal are 2 greatest men because Fed is the greatest and Nadal could own the greatest.

Basically, beside the stupid a>b; b>c then a>c logic, it totally refuses the entire history of the game before Fedal.

 

[Jackuar]

Roger is the best and Nadal is the 2nd best cause he matches up better with the best? Can't understand his guy's logic.

He can't be serious.

Again, top 8 Open-era: Federer - Sampras - Djokovic - Nadal - Borg - Lendl - Agassi - Connors.

It means Nadal plays better when he goes against Fed. Better - comparative -- means he plays comparatively better vs FEd, than he plays vs others. That's because against Fed he gets an obvious extra motivation and push and (Edit: Didn't mean PED) TUE or whatever that makes his play better... That doesn't mean he is better against everyone in his whole career, which again is obvious and apparent looking at his losses against players like Rosol and Pouille...

Fed plays best against most, second best vs Nadal
Nadal plays good against many, bad against few, comparatively better only vs very few, Fed in this case.

For a whole career, that means Fed is better "overall".

You can't confuse "overall" with "H2H". They both have different significance and meaning.

 

[6august]

It means Nadal plays better when he goes against Fed. Better - comparative -- means he plays comparatively better vs FEd, than he plays vs others. That's because against Fed he gets an obvious extra motivation and push and PED or whatever that makes his play better... That doesn't mean he is better against everyone in his whole career, which again is obvious and apparent looking at his losses against players like Rosol and Pouille...

Fed plays best against most, second best vs Nadal
Nadal plays good against many, bad against few, comparatively better only vs very few, Fed in this case.

For a whole career, that means Fed is better "overall".

You can't confuse "overall" with "H2H". They both have different significance and meaning.

Thank you,

I'd have no idea if the article simply writes: Mac thinks Roger is the best in history. However, he's owned by Nadal.

However, the way it's written makes readers misunderstand, though it may not necessarily be what they want to say.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

laver goat

 

[Deleted member 307496]

It means Nadal plays better when he goes against Fed. Better - comparative -- means he plays comparatively better vs FEd, than he plays vs others. That's because against Fed he gets an obvious extra motivation and push and (Edit: Didn't mean PED) TUE or whatever that makes his play better... That doesn't mean he is better against everyone in his whole career, which again is obvious and apparent looking at his losses against players like Rosol and Pouille...

Fed plays best against most, second best vs Nadal
Nadal plays good against many, bad against few, comparatively better only vs very few, Fed in this case.

For a whole career, that means Fed is better "overall".

You can't confuse "overall" with "H2H". They both have different significance and meaning.

Well for example, if I were a guy like Roddick, I'd fancy my chances way more against Nadal than Federer, not even just because of the matchup. Federer won't let you into a match once he's pulled ahead, whereas Nadal might depending on how the match develops -- but Nadal letting you into a match does not mean you have any real hope of winning. That is apart of Nadal's game, whereas Fed is more "done and dusted".

 

[ghostofMecir]

http://www.gamenguide.com/articles/...-roger-federer-still-greatest-of-all-time.htm

Tennis legend John McEnroe shared his thought on the legacy of Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, as arguably two best tennis players enter the end game of their respective Hall of Fame careers.

In a radio interview with WFAN host Marc Malusis on Tuesday in New York City via Tennis Today, McEnroe provided his updated version of tennis All-Time rankings.

For McEnroe, Federer is still the greatest tennis player of all time largely because of the body of work he had accomplished in his career. McEnroe pointed out the Swiss Master's longevity and consistency over the span of his pro career makes him the ultimate tennis player.

As far Nadal is concerned, McEnroe believes nobody in the history of tennis who matches up well with Federer. He thinks Nadal is the waterloo to Federer's greatness, although injuries and inconsistencies the last 2-3 years certainly hurt his claim as the G.O.AT.

"Federer overall, consistency-wise, is the best player ever," McEnroe told WFAN host Marc Malusis in a radio interview on Tuesday in New York City. "If you put Nadal, who is to me, the other guy. Those two if they played one-on-one and both guys were playing their best, I would say Nadal matches up better with Federer.

Knowing that Federer and Nadal may have at least 2 years left in their careers, McEnroe considers Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic as the top-2 players in the world right now. He added that Djokovic's accomplishment the last 4 years pushed him to top-5 all time. However, like Murray, the American predicts Djokovic to have 2 good years left in him before he hits the wall.

"There's a void that's about to occur because of what's happened with (Roger) Federer and (Rafael) Nadal," McEnroe told Malusis. "I mean, they're at the end, right? You can't imagine them going on more than a year or two. (Novak) Djokovic (and Andy) Murray are the two best, but they're not getting younger. I know 29 sounds young, but they're going to have another couple years, you anticipate."

Incredible insight by Johnny Mac.

 

[Jackuar]

Well for example, if I were a guy like Roddick, I'd fancy my chances way more against Nadal than Federer, not even just because of the matchup. Federer won't let you into a match once he's pulled ahead, whereas Nadal might depending on how the match develops -- but Nadal letting you into a match does not mean you have any real hope of winning. That is apart of Nadal's game, whereas Fed is more "done and dusted".

Agreed. And I think that is in sync with / extrapolates what Mac says and I explained. Every player has a better match-up vs a particular player. (In other words from the other extreme, everybody has a pigeon whom they can always take for granted). But that's about it. Fed dominating 95% of the field and losing to 5% makes him better and gives him more weightage overall than Nadal dominating 80% and losing to 20%.

 

[toby55555]

Roger is the best and Nadal is the 2nd best cause he matches up better with the best? Can't understand his guy's logic.

He can't be serious.

Again, top 8 Open-era: Federer - Sampras - Djokovic - Nadal - Borg - Lendl - Agassi - Connors.

Nadal is the greatest clay court player, take out his clay wins v Fed and it evens up. I think most would pick Fed over Nadal due to his overall achievements.

 

[uliks]

Again, top 8 Open-era: Federer - Sampras - Djokovic - Nadal - Borg - Lendl - Agassi - Connors.

Federer as a beneficiary of a very weak era shouldn't be at #1. It pains me to say this as a Federer fan but this is the truth. Other than that it's a good list...

 

[Jonas78]

Federer as a beneficiary of a very weak era shouldn't be at #1. It pains me to say this as a Federer fan but this is the truth. Other than that it's a good list...

So its been a weak era from 2003 until 2017?

 

[uliks]

But Federer isn't the beneficiary of a weak era, otherwise McEnroe wouldn't have made him his #1. Also, I'm glad we agree as fellow Federer fans that this is why Djokovic cannot be #1, given how weak 2014-2016 was.

Djokovic competed against a two 3 slam winners, 14 slam winner and 17 slam winner although the last one with heavy inflated slam resume I have to admit. So Djokovic did all his winnings in one of the strongest era ever, and we as a Federer fans have to recognize this and move on...

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Djokovic competed against a two 3 slam winners, 14 slam winner and 17 slam winner although the last one with heavy inflated slam resume I have to admit. So Djokovic did all his winnings in one of the strongest era ever, and we as a Federer fans have to recognize this and move on...

Djokovic won half of his slams against a geriatric Federer and a broken Nadal. Oh yeah, and also this era's Hewitt.

Great stuff man.

 

[junior74]

Djokovic competed against a two 3 slam winners, 14 slam winner and 17 slam winner although the last one with heavy inflated slam resume I have to admit. So Djokovic did all his winnings in one of the strongest era ever, and we as a Federer fans have to recognize this and move on...

Djokovic has had it tough these last couple of years, no doubt about that. At this year´s USO alone he had to play 7 hours of tennis only to reach the final

PS! Only arrogant Federer fans forget to acknowledge the greatness of Vesely, Querrey and Bautista Agut!

 

[roger presley]

Nadal is the greatest clay court player, take out his clay wins v Fed and it evens up. I think most would pick Fed over Nadal due to his overall achievements.

Agree.

 

[roger presley]

So its been a weak era from 2003 until 2017?

Wait until they start to talk about Sampras,a weak era expands for another 10 years.

 

[thrust]

Rod Laver doesn't like this.

Neither do I, an avid Rosewall fan, though I know that Ken is a big Federer fan. Roger certainly is one of the very greatest on all surfaces, along with Laver and Rosewall. Nadal was perhaps the greatest on clay, but not a great grass or hard court player. As for longevity, Rosewall's record is superior to Roger, having won 4 slams and reaching 4 other slam finals after turning 33.

In your opinion. He believes Nadal is second because he's second all time on slam count, plus the winning h2h against Federer elevates him above Sampras. Not sure what's hard to understand about that.

If John is only talking about open era, he may be right.Considering all time greats though Laver and Rosewall are superior to Nadal and even Federer. Including the pro tour, Rosewall won 9 slams on wood, 8 on grass and 6 on clay-RG. Laver won 2 on clay, 12 on grass, 5 on wood. As for longevity, Rosewall won 2 slams at 18, one on grass the other on clay and 2 more by age 22. Ken won 4 slams and reached 4 other slam finals ages 33-39, winning slams at 33,35,36,and 37 and reached his last 2 finals at 39, the USO final just short of turning 40.

 

[Steve0904]

It doesn't matter. McEnroe will just change his opinion tomorrow, or in a couple hours.

 

[PrinceMoron]

John McEnroe still grates after all these years


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NatF]

If John is only talking about open era, he may be right.Considering all time greats though Laver and Rosewall are superior to Nadal and even Federer. Including the pro tour, Rosewall won 9 slams on wood, 8 on grass and 6 on clay-RG. Laver won 2 on clay, 12 on grass, 5 on wood. As for longevity, Rosewall won 2 slams at 18, one on grass the other on clay and 2 more by age 22. Ken won 4 slams and reached 4 other slam finals ages 33-39, winning slams at 33,35,36,and 37 and reached his last 2 finals at 39, the USO final just short of turning 40.

We're about to disagree again

You equating Pro Majors with modern slams is ridiculous. Rosewall's longevity is fantastic but he was the third best player of his era spending most of his years as #2 to Gonzalez and then Laver. Federer is the clearly greater player being so far the clearly greatest player of his era and in fact the Open Era IMO. Winning 'slams' on wood in 4 round tournaments that aren't even all best of 5 can't be compared to what Federer has accomplished.

If your primary criteria for rating players is longevity then Rosewall is probably GOAT with Gonzalez and Tilden in the conversation, however it's not his pro majors that would put him up there.

I would also point out that Rosewall's last couple of wins were at the AO which was lower in status in those days, it's also unlikely that he would accomplish those feats in this era - even considering equalised equipment. I would consider Laver a head of Federer but Federer is superior to Rosewall...

 

[AceSalvo]

Almost a week late.

But hey, whats new that we don't know?

 

[thrust]

We're about to disagree again

You equating Pro Majors with modern slams is ridiculous. Rosewall's longevity is fantastic but he was the third best player of his era spending most of his years as #2 to Gonzalez and then Laver. Federer is the clearly greater player being so far the clearly greatest player of his era and in fact the Open Era IMO. Winning 'slams' on wood in 4 round tournaments that aren't even all best of 5 can't be compared to what Federer has accomplished.

If your primary criteria for rating players is longevity then Rosewall is probably GOAT with Gonzalez and Tilden in the conversation, however it's not his pro majors that would put him up there.

I would also point out that Rosewall's last couple of wins were at the AO which was lower in status in those days, it's also unlikely that he would accomplish those feats in this era - even considering equalised equipment. I would consider Laver a head of Federer but Federer is superior to Rosewall...

From 03-07 Roger was far superior to his competition. Once Nadal, in 08 then Novak in 11, Roger won few slams and was rarely #1. The tenninsbase and others do count the pro slams. How many slams would Roger have won had he been banned from competing from age 22-33? Ken won 15 pro slams, there were only 3, during that period. Rosewall has been credited to be either #1 or joint #1 5 different years, according to Wikipedia, and 8 years at #2 according to tennisbase. Both Wikipedia and tennisbase count the pro slams, despite what you and others think. The 71 AO, which Rosewall won without losing a set at 36, had All top players competing including: Laver, Emerson-who Ken beat easily in 3 sets, Ashe, Okker and others. As you know Ken also won the 71-72 WCT finals over Laver, all matches being 3of5 sets, age 36-37. I do not claim that Ken is the GOAT, but certainly in the top 4. I would rank him #2, closely behind Laver. Few realize that Ken was 29 when he first played Laver. From mid 64 on, Rod had the H-H advantage, except in the Big tournaments, that according to Bud Collins.

 

[AceSalvo]

Roger is the best and Nadal is the 2nd best cause he matches up better with the best? Can't understand his guy's logic.

He can't be serious.

Again, top 8 Open-era: Federer - Sampras - Djokovic - Nadal - Borg - Lendl - Agassi - Connors.

McEnroe is campaigning to death about Nadal's H2H. Not sure why.

Earleir in 2014: Nadal is the GOAT because he matches up pretty good against Fed. Give him a year or two to pass Fed.
Now in 2016: Nadal is second best since he matches up against Fed better than Sampras.

huh?? what about how Nadal matches up against Sampras??

The only thing we know for sure is Fed is GOAT. Everything else is up for debate.

 

[NatF]

From 03-07 Roger was far superior to his competition. Once Nadal, in 08 then Novak in 11, Roger won few slams and was rarely #1. The tenninsbase and others do count the pro slams. How many slams would Roger have won had he been banned from competing from age 22-33? Ken won 15 pro slams, there were only 3, during that period. Rosewall has been credited to be either #1 or joint #1 5 different years, according to Wikipedia, and 8 years at #2 according to tennisbase. Both Wikipedia and tennisbase count the pro slams, despite what you and others think. The 71 AO, which Rosewall won without losing a set at 36, had All top players competing including: Laver, Emerson-who Ken beat easily in 3 sets, Ashe, Okker and others. As you know Ken also won the 71-72 WCT finals over Laver, all matches being 3of5 sets, age 36-37. I do not claim that Ken is the GOAT, but certainly in the top 4. I would rank him #2, closely behind Laver. Few realize that Ken was 29 when he first played Laver. From mid 64 on, Rod had the H-H advantage, except in the Big tournaments, that according to Bud Collins.

That's 4 straight years at #1 which is more than Rosewall managed, he also topped the rankings in 2009. As there was no running ranking in Rosewall's era I will not include Federer's ascent to #1 in 2012. Also this is in the Open Era as well which should surely carry more weight than split field accomplishments. Younger ATG's usurping older ones is not an unusual occurrence, Rosewall playing second fiddle to Laver is to be expected - however he was never undisputed #1 until Gonzalez retired for the first time in 1962. That would be like Djokovic not reaching #1 until Federer retired...

Wikipedia and tennisbase are run by fans, the ATP and ITF don't count them - which is surely a stronger appeal to authority. I believe Pro era achievements should be counted but your method of doing so - as if they're equivalent to Open Era majors is indefensible.

Co-#1's are ridiculous IMO. Might as well call Rosewall joint #2 as well...He was only clearly #1 on 1962 and 1963. Even if you say he has arguments for other years (which he does for 1964 in particular), arguable #1 finishes must surely rank below clear finishes. By the same token I could claim Federer as co-#1 in 2003 for example.

The 1971 AO was a major but the 1972 AO was not. The 1972 WCT final was definitely a major and an impressive win. But again this comes down to longevity, Rosewall's level would not be high enough to win majors at 36 in later era's. Which might be unfair to him but so is judging today's greats by standards which are impossible to reach today. Winning majors today would be too tough for a 36 year old with Rosewall's build...

Your comment on Rosewall's age is ridiculous considering Ken's record against Gonzalez. Was he too young in 1960 when 32 year old Pancho thrashed him h2h by a margin of over a dozen matches? Rosewall evidently peaked quite late, the only reason the h2h with Laver is even respectable is because they played 46 times in Laver's rookie year - Rosewall won 34 of those matches, over half his total wins against Rod in that one year. Your addition of 'mid' 64 is interesting considering Laver had a 15-4 advantage in 1964 in the h2h, the last of Rosewall's wins was actually in November - in fact after their 3rd match Rosewall lost 8 straight times and then 6 straight times. As far as big matches goes that surely depends on your definition of big matches. I have the upmost respect for Bud but I believe a certain someone bent his ear on this, there were big tournaments beyond just the Pro Majors. Laver leads in finals and in BO5 encounters.

 

[Tenisfan3]

Djokovic competed against a two 3 slam winners, 14 slam winner and 17 slam winner although the last one with heavy inflated slam resume I have to admit. So Djokovic did all his winnings in one of the strongest era ever, and we as a Federer fans have to recognize this and move on...

Djokovic himself was responsible for Murray and Wawrinka becoming 3 slam winners though as he couldn't stop them. By that logic Federer should have dropped a couple of slams to Roddick, Hewitt and Safin just so uliks could then talk about how Federer faced great competition. Pity Djokovic was owned by Safin, Roddick and Gonzalez. Novak was lucky that they retired, was allowed extra time between points, was not defaulted at RG thereby giving him career slam, surface change at AO or he'd have never won AO, etc. Even as Novak fans we must move on after acknowledging this.

 

[tennisaddict]

It is hilarious Djoko nuts saying Fed's resume is inflated when Djoko is winning 6 out of 12 majors in an era where whipping boy Murray is #1 and 1 ATP 250 title in whole year fleet footed RaoMUG is #3

 

[mike danny]

That's 4 straight years at #1 which is more than Rosewall managed, he also topped the rankings in 2009. As there was no running ranking in Rosewall's era I will not include Federer's ascent to #1 in 2012. Also this is in the Open Era as well which should surely carry more weight than split field accomplishments. Younger ATG's usurping older ones is not an unusual occurrence, Rosewall playing second fiddle to Laver is to be expected - however he was never undisputed #1 until Gonzalez retired for the first time in 1962. That would be like Djokovic not reaching #1 until Federer retired...

Wikipedia and tennisbase are run by fans, the ATP and ITF don't count them - which is surely a stronger appeal to authority. I believe Pro era achievements should be counted but your method of doing so - as if they're equivalent to Open Era majors is indefensible.

Co-#1's are ridiculous IMO. Might as well call Rosewall joint #2 as well...He was only clearly #1 on 1962 and 1963. Even if you say he has arguments for other years (which he does for 1964 in particular), arguable #1 finishes must surely rank below clear finishes. By the same token I could claim Federer as co-#1 in 2003 for example.

The 1971 AO was a major but the 1972 AO was not. The 1972 WCT final was definitely a major and an impressive win. But again this comes down to longevity, Rosewall's level would not be high enough to win majors at 36 in later era's. Which might be unfair to him but so is judging today's greats by standards which are impossible to reach today. Winning majors today would be too tough for a 36 year old with Rosewall's build...

Your comment on Rosewall's age is ridiculous considering Ken's record against Gonzalez. Was he too young in 1960 when 32 year old Pancho thrashed him h2h by a margin of over a dozen matches? Rosewall evidently peaked quite late, the only reason the h2h with Laver is even respectable is because they played 46 times in Laver's rookie year - Rosewall won 34 of those matches, over half his total wins against Rod in that one year. Your addition of 'mid' 64 is interesting considering Laver had a 15-4 advantage in 1964 in the h2h, the last of Rosewall's wins was actually in November - in fact after their 3rd match Rosewall lost 8 straight times and then 6 straight times. As far as big matches goes that surely depends on your definition of big matches. I have the upmost respect for Bud but I believe a certain someone bent his ear on this, there were big tournaments beyond just the Pro Majors.

You'll have to explain that part to me, mate

 

[NatF]

You'll have to explain that part to me, mate

We have a weekly ranking right now, they didn't in Rosewall's times. Its's possible with a running ranking that Rosewall may have had stints at #1 in years throughout his career beyond those years he landed at #1 at the finish. When comparing these past era's I think it's easier to go off YE #1 rankings.

 

[mike danny]

We have a weekly ranking right now, they didn't in Rosewall's times. Its's possible with a running ranking that Rosewall may have had stints at #1 in years throughout his career beyond those years he landed at #1 at the finish. When comparing these past era's I think it's easier to go off YE #1 rankings.

Ok, fair enough. Thanks for clearing that up

Now I know some more about past eras.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

... is that the latest update of the "random GOAT of the week" by bigmac ?!
(aka the "even a broken clock is right twice a day" of tennis ?)

 

[TMF]

If John is only talking about open era, he may be right.Considering all time greats though Laver and Rosewall are superior to Nadal and even Federer. Including the pro tour, Rosewall won 9 slams on wood, 8 on grass and 6 on clay-RG. Laver won 2 on clay, 12 on grass, 5 on wood. As for longevity, Rosewall won 2 slams at 18, one on grass the other on clay and 2 more by age 22. Ken won 4 slams and reached 4 other slam finals ages 33-39, winning slams at 33,35,36,and 37 and reached his last 2 finals at 39, the USO final just short of turning 40.

Please stop comparing the 1960s tournaments to the open era tournament.

When people want to argue for the greatness of present players like Federer or Sampras, they sometimes point to total victories of major tournaments (Wimbledon, FO, USO, AO), where Federer (16) and Sampras (14) top the list. This is an absurd argument, because those specific four tournaments didn’t always mean what they do today, for reasons that vary by era. To whatever degree that list matters, it matters only from the mid-1980s onward and can’t be used to compare recent players to those of earlier eras.

Similarly, when people want to argue for the greatness of past players like Laver or Rosewall, they sometimes point to total victories of the top tournaments from the professional tour of the 1960s. With all due respect, I believe that this too is completely wrong. Pro majors were different from Open majors, and they should not be treated the same way.

The three big differences between pro and Open majors are these:

1. From 1963-1967, all pro majors were played on fast surfaces.

2. Pro majors had fields of anywhere from 8 to 14 players, as opposed to 128 players.

3. Amateurs, who were among the world’s best players, could not compete in pro majors.

These things made it easier to win pro majors in bunches, which aided Laver and Rosewall in winning so many of them.

To be clear: You can only play who’s in front of you, and you can only play on the surfaces that are being used. It’s not Laver’s fault that things were like this in the mid-1960s. Also, Point #3 shouldn’t be overstated. The pro majors of the mid-1960s typically included 4 out of the 5 best players in the world, with only Roy Emerson missing. Emerson certainly wasn’t as good as Laver or Rosewall, though his absence did matter, as did the absence of other amateurs who were among the top 10 or top 15 players in the world.

To illustrate what pro majors were like, here’s an accounting of Laver’s major wins in 1967. I've supplied rough, theoretical 2011 equivalents of the opponents if Djokovic (the current #1) were substituted for Laver:

1. US Pro (field of 14): Laver beat Olmedo, Ayala, Stolle, and Gimeno
2011 equivalent: if Djokovic beat Seppi, Chela, Monfils, and Murray

2. Wimbledon Pro (field of eight): Laver beat Stolle, Gimeno, and Rosewall
2011 equivalent: if Djokovic beat Monfils, Murray, and Nadal

3. French Pro (field of 12): Laver beat MacKay, Stolle, and Gimeno
2011 equivalent: if Djokovic beat Malisse, Monfils, and Murray

4. Wembley Pro (field of 12): Laver beat MacKay, Davidson, and Rosewall
2011 equivalent: if Djokovic beat Malisse, Almagro, and Nadal


Bottom Line

Laver’s achievement in sweeping those four tournaments in 1967 was very impressive and significant, just as it would be very impressive and significant if Djokovic were to beat the equivalent players from 2011 in four important tournaments (two on grass and two on a fast indoor surface, with fields of 8 to 14 players) in a calendar year.

But that achievement was not nearly as impressive or significant as Laver’s achievement in 1969 of winning the Grand Slam.

The pro tour of the 1960s was terrific, and its best players were as great as those of any other era. But the right way to assess those players is not to count up majors from that era as if they were the same as majors of other eras. The 1960s majors were less difficult to sweep than Open majors from the mid-1980s to the present.

Pro majors ≠ Open majors

I believe the vast majority have Federer and Laver at the #1 and #2, or vice versa in GOAT. However Rosewall is often listed behind Tilden, Gonzales, Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal and Nole.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Neither do I, an avid Rosewall fan, though I know that Ken is a big Federer fan. Roger certainly is one of the very greatest on all surfaces, along with Laver and Rosewall. Nadal was perhaps the greatest on clay, but not a great grass or hard court player. As for longevity, Rosewall's record is superior to Roger, having won 4 slams and reaching 4 other slam finals after turning 33.

If John is only talking about open era, he may be right.Considering all time greats though Laver and Rosewall are superior to Nadal and even Federer. Including the pro tour, Rosewall won 9 slams on wood, 8 on grass and 6 on clay-RG. Laver won 2 on clay, 12 on grass, 5 on wood. As for longevity, Rosewall won 2 slams at 18, one on grass the other on clay and 2 more by age 22. Ken won 4 slams and reached 4 other slam finals ages 33-39, winning slams at 33,35,36,and 37 and reached his last 2 finals at 39, the USO final just short of turning 40.

I don't agree with your assessment of Rosewall's relative strengths on different surfaces. By today's standards, in my view, Rosewall was a better grass/fast court player than a clay court player.

 

[TripleATeam]

Djokovic has had it tough these last couple of years, no doubt about that. At this year´s USO alone he had to play 7 hours of tennis only to reach the final

PS! Only arrogant Federer fans forget to acknowledge the greatness of Vesely, Querrey and Bautista Agut!

Yep, dominance/draw luck makes an era weak. The only way an era can be strong is if no one person is dominant in it.

PS: I see we're forgetting Sergiy Stakhovsky, Albert Ramos, Jeremy Chardy, Andreas Seppi in the list of greats, as well.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Yep, dominance/draw luck makes an era weak. The only way an era can be strong is if no one person is dominant in it.

PS: I see we're forgetting Sergiy Stakhovsky, Albert Ramos, Jeremy Chardy, Andreas Seppi in the list of greats, as well.

You may as well bring up Hicham Arazi, Louis Horna or Paul Goldstein if you're so desperate.

Obviously a "strong era", i.e. a host of ATGs fighting at their peaks, isn't going to have a grand dominator, because no one in history has managed to score the highest level on all surfaces so far.

 

[TripleATeam]

You may as well bring up Hicham Arazi, Louis Horna or Paul Goldstein if you're so desperate.

Obviously a "strong era", i.e. a host of ATGs fighting at their peaks, isn't going to have a grand dominator, because no one in history has managed to score the highest level on all surfaces so far.

If someone is the tennis GOAT- they are measured by how many Slams they win, years at number 1, H2H, and career wins. These numbers deflate during strong eras by your definition. Hence, only people in weak eras could ever get good amounts in any of these categories. Federer would never have gotten 17 slams. Novak would never have had 12. Hell, more than 2 slams a year by any one person would mean that there would be no competition! The strong era leads to no GOAT, and the weak eras only produce ATGs.

Take an example. Let's say players 1-4 are all at their peaks at the same time. Best players ever. Each one ALWAYS makes the semis, but they each only win 1 slam a year. Let's assume a 6 year prime. After their prime, they would each only have 6 slams, (same as Becker.) Their H2H would be about even with each other, and their weeks at #1 would be nowhere close to 300- it would be about 78 weeks each. Given our use of numbers, none of these even begin to compare to Federer, Nadal, Borg, Sampras, or Djokovic.

 

[mike danny]

If someone is the tennis GOAT- they are measured by how many Slams they win, years at number 1, H2H, and career wins. These numbers deflate during strong eras by your definition. Hence, only people in weak eras could ever get good amounts in any of these categories. Federer would never have gotten 17 slams. Novak would never have had 12. Hell, more than 2 slams a year by any one person would mean that there would be no competition! The strong era leads to no GOAT, and the weak eras only produce ATGs.

Take an example. Let's say players 1-4 are all at their peaks at the same time. Best players ever. Each one ALWAYS makes the semis, but they each only win 1 slam a year. Let's assume a 6 year prime. After their prime, they would each only have 6 slams, (same as Becker.) Their H2H would be about even with each other, and their weeks at #1 would be nowhere close to 300- it would be about 78 weeks each. Given our use of numbers, none of these even begin to compare to Federer, Nadal, Borg, Sampras, or Djokovic.

Yes, if 4 all time greats are all at their peaks at the same time, it will be very difficult for any of them to get to 10 majors.

If 2 of them decline massively, while the other 2 still maintain a good level, that's the only way the other 2 can still add more to their numbers.

 

[TripleATeam]

Yes, if 4 all time greats are all at their peaks at the same time, it will be very difficult for any of them to get to 10 majors.

If 2 of them decline massively, while the other 2 still maintain a good level, that's the only way the other 2 can still add more to their numbers.

Are you insinuating something? I feel like I'm missing it, unless you're talking about the Big 4.

 

[mike danny]

Are you insinuating something? I feel like I'm missing it, unless you're talking about the Big 4.

I'm just discussing your hypothetical.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

If someone is the tennis GOAT- they are measured by how many Slams they win, years at number 1, H2H, and career wins. These numbers deflate during strong eras by your definition. Hence, only people in weak eras could ever get good amounts in any of these categories. Federer would never have gotten 17 slams. Novak would never have had 12. Hell, more than 2 slams a year by any one person would mean that there would be no competition! The strong era leads to no GOAT, and the weak eras only produce ATGs.

Take an example. Let's say players 1-4 are all at their peaks at the same time. Best players ever. Each one ALWAYS makes the semis, but they each only win 1 slam a year. Let's assume a 6 year prime. After their prime, they would each only have 6 slams, (same as Becker.) Their H2H would be about even with each other, and their weeks at #1 would be nowhere close to 300- it would be about 78 weeks each. Given our use of numbers, none of these even begin to compare to Federer, Nadal, Borg, Sampras, or Djokovic.

That's why I give extra value to consistency/longevity. Competition will fluctuate and affect title counts, but there has never been more than 4 ATGs in prime form duking it out at the same time (and this isn't going to change any soon), so a historically strong player will at least be there in QF-SF to contest big tournaments time and time again. Fed leads the (Open era) field in that regard as well, thus proving he isn't just some useless weak era beneficiary, otherwise he wouldn't have remained relevant at the top of the game until 35 - at least, hoping that there are still good times ahead of fedr, although I'm not making any predictions. Longevity is what's been keeping Federer a notch ahead of Djokodal, and they seem to be struggling to replicate it.

Talking a bit more on point, while a particularly strong era won't allow big domination, an average one may, with appropriate resistance. It's not like Fedovic routinely breezed to Slam wins; there were dominant matches, and there were tough matches, and some five-setters too. I wouldn't call that weak. Weak competition is when you win quite dominantly even when playing rather wobbly, because there is no-one around capable of punishing that. But when it comes to majors, AO 06 is the only 'weak' one I can think of during the big 4 era. USO 16 would have been similar had Wawrinka not saved the day. Nadal had a lot of "chokes" coming this way, but not before he drained his opponents with super physical tennis, as is his speciality. Weakness was always present to an extent, but hasn't truly been rampant since the interregnum era with super soft draws like Agassi's AO '03 (yes, he played nice, but the R3 ended up being the only challenge, Agassi didn't drop 4 games in a set afterwards, that's way too sweet - probably the reason Agassi is the only player to win a major after his 32nd birthday in the last 40 years).

 

[TripleATeam]

That's why I give extra value to consistency/longevity. Competition will fluctuate and affect title counts, but there has never been more than 4 ATGs in prime form duking it out at the same time (and this isn't going to change any soon), so a historically strong player will at least be there in QF-SF to contest big tournaments time and time again. Fed leads the (Open era) field in that regard as well, thus proving he isn't just some useless weak era beneficiary, otherwise he wouldn't have remained relevant at the top of the game until 35 - at least, hoping that there are still good times ahead of fedr, although I'm not making any predictions. Longevity is what's been keeping Federer a notch ahead of Djokodal, and they seem to be struggling to replicate it.

Talking a bit more on point, while a particularly strong era won't allow big domination, an average one may, with appropriate resistance. It's not like Fedovic routinely breezed to Slam wins; there were dominant matches, and there were tough matches, and some five-setters too. I wouldn't call that weak. Weak competition is when you win quite dominantly even when playing rather wobbly, because there is no-one around capable of punishing that. But when it comes to majors, AO 06 is the only 'weak' one I can think of during the big 4 era. USO 16 would have been similar had Wawrinka not saved the day. Nadal had a lot of "chokes" coming this way, but not before he drained his opponents with super physical tennis, as is his speciality. Weakness was always present to an extent, but hasn't truly been rampant since the interregnum era with super soft draws like Agassi's AO '03 (yes, he played nice, but the R3 ended up being the only challenge, Agassi didn't drop 4 games in a set afterwards, that's way too sweet - probably the reason Agassi is the only player to win a major after his 32nd birthday in the last 40 years).

Not a bad way to rank it at all- perhaps go off of QF stages reached in their slams?

However, consistency shows the longevity of a player, and that would often span more than one era. They could easily begin to win during a weaker era of the game, and just maintain a great level over the course of the next few seasons. Say, if they win 3 slams a year for a few years, then begin to play at a high level over the course of the rest of their career, only winning a few slams here and there, among other ATGs.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Not a bad way to rank it at all- perhaps go off of QF stages reached in their slams?

However, consistency shows the longevity of a player, and that would often span more than one era. They could easily begin to win during a weaker era of the game, and just maintain a great level over the course of the next few seasons. Say, if they win 3 slams a year for a few years, then begin to play at a high level over the course of the rest of their career, only winning a few slams here and there, among other ATGs.

*winks*
You don't choose your birthdate and, consequently, the era your peak falls into, but what you can do is try to extend it, and then post-peak prime, and post-prime, and past-prime, etc. Ther's a limit, but, barring career-breaking injuries that befell far too many good players, 15 years of being more or less relevant at the top seems to be doable. After all, being fortunate enough not to succumb to tough injuries is part of what makes an ATG, let alone a GOAT candidate, since a great deal of players were prevented from reaching their full potential, or keeping it for long, by bad injuries or illnesses. Del Potro is just one such case - it's truly amazing that he still managed to accomplish quite a bit despite being held back by a glass wrist for most of his physical prime. It's not fair since it favours those who are naturally more nimble and apt to recover, but life isn't fair like that. The whole concept of greatness hinges on the fact that some are just born more talented than others through no merit of their own. Some lesser players work just as hard but simply aren't that good. It should be remembered than being a greater player doesn't imply being a greater person. I will argue Federer to be the greatest of the Open era, but I'm not presenting him as some kind of superior being. He's a great guy, and so are all top players currently, even Nadal, whose on-court mannerisms and attitude I rather dislike, however, he still seems a swell guy away from competition. I guess Berdych is the highest-ranked player who's really kind of dicky...I suppose that's why the tennis fandom likes to laugh at him.

Oh, as for level measurement, I believe that's quite visible if you actually bother to watch intently and compare. A stronger opponent will handle the same shots better, but they're still the same and look the same, if they are. If shot quality went down on one side in addition to going up on the other side, that can be seen. It can also go up or down on both sides, depends. Its more precise to analyse on a match-to-match basis, since players are human and will not retain the same level in every match and set without fail.
(Some Nadal fans jeer sarcastically at Fed's level going down following a bout of mono in early 2008, since such a lucky coincidence of Federer's level going down and Nadal's level going up at the same time must be impossible. Makes no sense to me, it didn't even happen simultaneously - Federer struggled since AO, whereas Nadal only stopped struggling and started peaking around RG. He was nowhere near an unbeatable monster at MC and Hamburg and gave Federer plenty of chances, which were ultimately wasted away. RGdal was a completely different beast...)

My take is that if Nadal and Djokovic had a better overall peak performance, they would have beaten Federer more convincingly now that they were the ones holding the age/form advantage that got bigger with every year. But that only happened where you'd expect them to be better, such as AO Plexicushion, slow Miami and clay, until Federer turned Oldеrer during his 2013 troubles and his level went way down. Still, after recovering some of it, he competed extremely well, split BO3 matches with Djok and made a good showing in the majors despite no longer being able to sustain elite level for much long. I'd expect a repeat of Peakerer-Oldassi with 0 losses, and even then their exciting USO clashes make me think peak Agassi would've been a mouthful. It seems Sampras owned him there due to the match-up, which was primarily mental, ever since their first final in 1990.
So yeah, no argument for me to put Djokodal ahead when they trail Fed in both title weight and longevity. There is still time, especially for Djokovic. The clock, however, is ticking.

 

[TripleATeam]

*winks*
You don't choose your birthdate and, consequently, the era your peak falls into, but what you can do is try to extend it, and then post-peak prime, and post-prime, and past-prime, etc. Ther's a limit, but, barring career-breaking injuries that befell far too many good players, 15 years of being more or less relevant at the top seems to be doable. After all, being fortunate enough not to succumb to tough injuries is part of what makes an ATG, let alone a GOAT candidate, since a great deal of players were prevented from reaching their full potential, or keeping it for long, by bad injuries or illnesses. Del Potro is just one such case - it's truly amazing that he still managed to accomplish quite a bit despite being held back by a glass wrist for most of his physical prime. It's not fair since it favours those who are naturally more nimble and apt to recover, but life isn't fair like that. The whole concept of greatness hinges on the fact that some are just born more talented than others through no merit of their own. Some lesser players work just as hard but simply aren't that good. It should be remembered than being a greater player doesn't imply being a greater person. I will argue Federer to be the greatest of the Open era, but I'm not presenting him as some kind of superior being. He's a great guy, and so are all top players currently, even Nadal, whose on-court mannerisms and attitude I rather dislike, however, he still seems a swell guy away from competition. I guess Berdych is the highest-ranked player who's really kind of dicky...I suppose that's why the tennis fandom likes to laugh at him.

Oh, as for level measurement, I believe that's quite visible if you actually bother to watch intently and compare. A stronger opponent will handle the same shots better, but they're still the same and look the same, if they are. If shot quality went down on one side in addition to going up on the other side, that can be seen. It can also go up or down on both sides, depends. Its more precise to analyse on a match-to-match basis, since players are human and will not retain the same level in every match and set without fail.
(Some Nadal fans jeer sarcastically at Fed's level going down following a bout of mono in early 2008, since such a lucky coincidence of Federer's level going down and Nadal's level going up at the same time must be impossible. Makes no sense to me, it didn't even happen simultaneously - Federer struggled since AO, whereas Nadal only stopped struggling and started peaking around RG. He was nowhere near an unbeatable monster at MC and Hamburg and gave Federer plenty of chances, which were ultimately wasted away. RGdal was a completely different beast...)

My take is that if Nadal and Djokovic had a better overall peak performance, they would have beaten Federer more convincingly now that they were the ones holding the age/form advantage that got bigger with every year. But that only happened where you'd expect them to be better, such as AO Plexicushion, slow Miami and clay, until Federer turned Oldеrer during his 2013 troubles and his level went way down. Still, after recovering some of it, he competed extremely well, split BO3 matches with Djok and made a good showing in the majors despite no longer being able to sustain elite level for much long. I'd expect a repeat of Peakerer-Oldassi with 0 losses, and even then their exciting USO clashes make me think peak Agassi would've been a mouthful. It seems Sampras owned him there due to the match-up, which was primarily mental, ever since their first final in 1990.
So yeah, no argument for me to put Djokodal ahead when they trail Fed in both title weight and longevity. There is still time, especially for Djokovic. The clock, however, is ticking.

Well, the clock is ticking, but they're doing well. Nadal is still in the top 10, despite the end of this season, and Novak has been in the top 3 for ages. I'd expect their longevity to be pretty good come the end of their careers. Title weight, we may come to see. Another 2 slams from Nadal or 4 from Djokovic, with a few more stints at #1 will be pretty convincing for a GOAT debate (especially with their Masters leads, and career win records still better.) Until them, Federer still outlasts them.

 

[tennisaddict]

Well, the clock is ticking, but they're doing well. Nadal is still in the top 10, despite the end of this season, and Novak has been in the top 3 for ages. I'd expect their longevity to be pretty good come the end of their careers. Title weight, we may come to see. Another 2 slams from Nadal or 4 from Djokovic, with a few more stints at #1 will be pretty convincing for a GOAT debate (especially with their Masters leads, and career win records still better.) Until them, Federer still outlasts them.

Don't believe Novak and Rafa will be reaching 3 major finals at 34/35 and be No 2 at that age.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Well, the clock is ticking, but they're doing well. Nadal is still in the top 10, despite the end of this season, and Novak has been in the top 3 for ages. I'd expect their longevity to be pretty good come the end of their careers. Title weight, we may come to see. Another 2 slams from Nadal or 4 from Djokovic, with a few more stints at #1 will be pretty convincing for a GOAT debate (especially with their Masters leads, and career win records still better.) Until them, Federer still outlasts them.

It's been 2.5 years since Nadal last won a set in a major QF, and you're talking 2 more major titles? Not believable. Which is good, because while Rafael's skills were/are great, he's too little of a gentleman on court, and it would be a bad image. Honorable sportsmanship of many top players of the yore is no more anyway, but that is too much.

Djokovic should be on track, but he seems to have gotten royally derailed with all that amorypaz propaganda. I've no predictions or expectations either way, except that it should be interesting. It's quite a fair battle, with Djoko even claiming a potential advantage due not being chased by a strong generation like Federer. But he's gotta deal with inner unharmony, or whatever's been plaguing his mind. One of the reasons, even requirements, for such sportive longevity is a healthy mindset that doresn't add extra mental burden. Federer has managed to set his life very comfortably and appears to enjoy all of it; he doesn't seem to have any long-term worisomeness, only short outbursts that are always present. Regaining inner peace is a must for Djock, but I expect he'll find a way soon enough. A dedicated ATG like him surely isn't gonna wilander away like that.

You'll have noticed my use of the 'Open era' qualifier, by the way. I don't believe in underranking past greats because they happened to play in a different time and ultimately prefer to put Laver on the all-time goat pedestal, as that isn't any less logical and tones down much strife.

 

[6august]

No matter how madly I love Nadal, I could at most rate him at No. 4 of the Open Era, let alone the entire history.

Saying Fedal are the greatest ever regarding their #17 #14 is like saying Messi - C.Ronaldo are the greatest regarding their 10 fuucking Golden Balloons. The saddest part is unlike us, Mac has been there for his whole life.

He has become a media's parrot. I've lost all my respect for the guy.

 

[6august]

Fed is clearly the No.1 of the Open Era but proving he's better than Laver is impossible. And I'm a fan since his very very beginning.

 

[Shaolin]

John is correct this week. Fed actually is the GOAT IMO.

However, next week he will proclaim Pouille GOAT and the week after that probably Milos.