TripleATeam
G.O.A.T.
We'll see.
John McEnroe provides updated version of rankings: Why Roger Federer Still Greatest of All Time
- Thread starter tennisaddict
- Start date
Urkezi
Semi-Pro
No, you'll see, most of us have already seen it happen too many times to believe in legends.
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
Chances are, at the time of my posting this, John is of an entirely different opinion now.
I have my doubts this one really is a Federer-FanDjokovic 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!
. Stinks of a Djoker-fan in disguise. Some kind of fan constantly trying to convince the forum Federers achievements is a result of weak era
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Mac has a ton of talent, but insight? Really?
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
If he had as much intellect and self-control as talent he'd be part of the GOAT debate!
junior74
Bionic Poster
I have my doubts this one really is a Federer-Fan
I love how Stan now is proof of a strong era, along with Del Potro - a player who has reached one - 1 - slam final in 2009
In a thread with a different agenda, Stan is the player who could only beat injured/ tired Djokovic...
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
Mac is definitely underrated in the ATG stakes, but yes his accomplishments (or lack of) after 1984 is surprising.
Ken won 1 RG as an amateur, 1 in the open era and 4 as a pro. In 63 the French pro was moved from RG to an indoor arena. with very fast courts. He beat Laver in 4 finals there. Had those 4 French pro stayed at RG, Ken probably would have won at least 3 or 4 of them as he was the best clay court player at that time. Ken, like Rod and Roger were great all court players. Gonzalez and Sampras never won a clay slam, Borg never won a HC slam, Roger and Novak have only one clay slam each. Again, I do not claim that Rosewall was the GOAT, but certainly in the top 4, if we are talking all time and include the pro tour. According to the tennisbase, he is ranked 3, two points behind Federer with Laver at #1.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Laver actually won most of their clay court meetings, including in the Pro era - there is no guarantee Ken would have won at least 3 or 4 of them, or that he was the better clay courter at the time. Djokovic and Federer have 1 FO each because they had to compete with the greatest player of all time on that surface. They would probably beat Rosewall most of the time on clay like Laver did.
Each lives in his/her own realityI love how Stan now is proof of a strong era, along with Del Potro - a player who has reached one - 1 - slam final in 2009
In a thread with a different agenda, Stan is the player who could only beat injured/ tired Djokovic...
.But when/if you make a profile on TT-forum, as an Ultronian, pretending to be a Fed-fan to appear more objective, you have definitely reached a low point.
I guess it has happened before...
As stated many times before, Federers longevity is unmatched. If Djoker/Nadal were born in 81, Fed would have more than 17 slams. Feds scenario is probably the worst one, facing peak Djoko/Nadal/Murray going into his thirties.
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I think you missed my point. Tennis base only considers records and statistics. I look at records and statistics, but, I also consider level of play, style of play, equipment, court surface, etc. My point was, based all of those factors, in my view, by today's standards, peak Rosewall would still be one of the top grass/fast court players in the game, but, he wouldn't be as competitive on clay, or slower hard courts.
When Laver won the 69 FO against Rosewall he said that he knew he was in great form in order to beat Ken in 3 straight sets. Laver was a better fast court player than clay court player, yet he could not beat Ken on the very fast French pro indoor courts. Fact IS though that Ken has 6 RG titles, Rod has 2, Gonzalez-0. At their very best, I do think Rod was the slightly better player, but in their biggest matches, Ken was Rod's equal, at least. Ken was 5ft-7, Rod was 5-10, Gonzalez, at least 6-2. Pound for pound, inch for inch, Ken was the greatest player post world war 2 and top 5 player-accomplishment wise- of all time. If you don't believe me, check out the tennisbase or Slasher on the Men's tennis forum. Both did massive research to come to their conclusions. H-H is one thing, accomplishments are another. Is Nadal superior to Federer because of his superior H-H against Roger?
NatF
Bionic Poster
Rosewall took the lead in the clay h2h in the Open Era. Obviously beating Rosewall in straight sets in an impressive performance though Rosewall was clearly weaker in 1969 than other years. Laver lacked the patience of a Rosewall on clay but hit with topspin and was the best player on all surfaces during his time at #1 in the Pro ranks.
Again I question the definition of very biggest matches, I don't think the old Pro tour or early Open Era is so clearly defined like today. Rod has a clear lead in finals and overall. However I don't consider the h2h for why Laver is greater than Rosewall, the younger ATG tends to lead h2h. I think Laver is only an inch taller than Rosewall not 3. Pound for pound perhaps you might be right but it's a meaningless comparison...
The way accomplishments are weighted is subjective, I consider dominance and time at #1 as a major criteria - Rosewall is lacking in these area's. Many former players and contemporaries of Rosewall don't rate him in their top 5-10. I think we're placing modern values on a tour structure that was simply very different, the likes of Wembley was indisputably a big tournament for the Pro's but the stature of the other Pro Majors is not so clear to me. A guy who isn't even rated top 5 all time by his peers and those of his time is not an arguable GOAT IMO. You may be right that his accomplishments are top 5, but it's hard to judge. For me Rosewall falls in the bracket just beneath my GOAT candidates (Laver, Federer, Gonzalez). I find it unreasonable to place him above any of those 3 personally.
JonnyMac
Hall of Fame
Comparing players from different eras is a fun, but ultimately pointless exercise, the same as with racing drivers.
For example saying Borg was better/worse/less or more great than Fedal etc. is great conjecture but nothing more.
Imagine in another 200 years when so many greats will have come and gone ...Impossible to compare.
Consider this for example ....
For example saying Borg was better/worse/less or more great than Fedal etc. is great conjecture but nothing more.
Imagine in another 200 years when so many greats will have come and gone ...Impossible to compare.
Consider this for example ....
Last edited:
For me, accomplishment wise: 1- Laver, 2- Federer, 3- Rosewall, 4- Gonzalez. True, Pancho was #1 for many years, but before Ken, Lew and Laver joined the pro tour his competition was rather weak: Kramer, who trounced him at first became a part time player. Budge and Riggs were well past their prime by 51. Segura, great player but like Ferrer, an overachiever as he was very short using two hands on all shots. Sedgman and Trabert were great players, but not in the same league as prime: Laver, Rosewall, Federer, Nadal or Djokovic.
SinjinCooper
Hall of Fame
Fed > Borg > Sampras > Nadal > Djokovic.Comparing players from different eras is a fun, but ultimately pointless exercise, the same as with racing drivers.
For example saying Borg was better/worse/less or more great than Fedal etc. is great conjecture but nothing more.
Imagine in another 200 years when so many great will have come and gone ...Impossible to compare.
Consider this for example ....
NatF
Bionic Poster
I would say Rosewalls competition when he was mopping up Pro Majors in 60-62 was very weak, with mostly just older worse versions of the players Gonzalez was beating. The Pro tour was dying in the early 60's, Laver injected new life and had a great rivalry with Rosewall but I think the mid to late 50's was stronger and deeper personally.
You rate Federer above Rosewall in accomplishments but Ken ahead overall? Why is that?
JonnyMac
Hall of Fame
AceSalvo
Legend
I don't think its easy to call out big Mac for saying Nadal is GOAT in 2014. Nadal's 2013 and RG 2014 would have had anyone say that. Only the sternest of people (Fed fans) would have still claimed its Fed.
Now that big Mac says its Fed, I do see an opportunity to plaster his face with rotten tomatoes.
He most definitely over estimated Nadal and under estimated the # 17.
Now that big Mac says its Fed, I do see an opportunity to plaster his face with rotten tomatoes.
He most definitely over estimated Nadal and under estimated the # 17.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
We can never underestimate the emotional component. Once a player loses his will to win - for whatever reason - things can fall very quickly. That's the big question about Novak now - can he get his will to win back? (And can he get healthy enough again to regain his mojo.)
We'll know in about a month. Lots of questions will be answered early in 2017.
Last edited:
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Very true.
I do actually consider Federer the GOAT, but I can certainly accept that Laver could be. Certainly Nadal is only 4th of the Open Era, and in the lower half of the top ten all time though.
Re: Messi/Ronaldo, it's bloody ridiculous. I looked up the other day who the last Ballon D'Or winner outside them was, and it was Kaka back in 2007 - he's now playing for some no-name club and we haven't heard from him in years.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Yeah, that term is only relevant in boxing (or, I guess, other combat sports), where there's direct physical contact between participants.
ghostofMecir
Legend
It was a joke. I bolder the part in which he said that Djokovic and Murray were the two best players in the world right now.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Gotcha. I use for this: <sarcasm>
Since a lot of people don't know when I'm being ironic.
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
"Perhaps?" Who would you possibly put above him???
Many say that Federer had weak competition 03-08, except for Nadal on clay. Players can only play against who is on the tour at the same time. Ken won 15 pro slams, 8 official slams despite being banned for 11 years. Again, how many slams would Roger have won had he been banned from age 22-33, 1 or 2? Hoad was the same age as Ken and was reaching slam finals through 63. Hoad could beat everyone else, but not Ken, as he lost 4 slam finals to Ken in the 60's as well as the French in 58. The tennisbase has Roger two ranking points of Ken, all time. They take into account a players total accomplishments throughout their career, so obviously Ken did have some major accomplishments to be ranked so high. Gonzalez, I think, is ranked #8 on that list. Accomplishment wise, like the tennisbase, I think that Ken are very close if the pro tour is included. IMO, Ken's major advantage over Roger is that he was a better all court surface player. People make excuses for Roger's failure against Nadal on clay, which is nonsense. A GOAT should be able to beat his main rival on their favorite surface more than Roger did. IMO, most of Roger's losses to Nadal on clay was mental, as he had the game to beat Nadal on any surface. Longevity wise, Ken is also superior to Roger. Ken won 2 slams at 18, one on grass, the other on clay. He won 4 by 22, then 4 more after turning 33. Those players, who you say, don't consider Ken a top 5 or 10 all time player were probably those bigger guys that Ken usually beat.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
J. McEnroe has moved from calling Laver the GOAT (the historically accepted truth), to Sampras, back to Laver, to Federer, then to Nadal, sort of entertained the idea regarding Djokovic, back to Laver, then to Federer.
GOAT distinctions do not jump from person to person like a cold bug. Noting McEnroe's history, he's kissing Federer ass, as he likely sees no future GOAT players in a current and projected men's field that is filled with no-talents, "just there" players and journeymen that will never elevate the sport (and guarantee its survival).
GOAT distinctions do not jump from person to person like a cold bug. Noting McEnroe's history, he's kissing Federer ass, as he likely sees no future GOAT players in a current and projected men's field that is filled with no-talents, "just there" players and journeymen that will never elevate the sport (and guarantee its survival).
NatF
Bionic Poster
Frankly many don't have a clue
You can't compare the competition of the Open Era with a depleted pro field - you are the one who brought up competition in the first place anyway. Federer's competition was certainly tougher than Rosewall's in that 60-62 bracket at the Pro Majors, Trabert, Sedgman, Segura were frequent opponents and all were over 30 years old. Pancho didn't compete in the majors at all in 1960 or 1962, Hoad was often struggling with injury. No comparison at all.Half of those official slams were in the amateur ranks, how many slams would Rosewall have in his 30's facing peak Djokovic? Quite possibly none. Yes you can only play who's in front of you so maybe you shouldn't put down Pancho's competition - which I would still hold against Rosewall's anyday of the week.
The tennisbase rankings are subjective, how they stack different criteria is irrelevant. It's an opinion and nothing more, it carries no more weight than mine or yours. I would argue if Rosewall was a greater player than Gonzalez he would have clearly topped him in the rankings before Pancho retired. Any ranking which puts Gonzalez 5 places below Rosewall is garbage. Also I contest Rosewall being a better all surface player that Federer, both have 1 clay major in an Open field. Roger never had the benefit of playing split fields.
Yes, they're just bitter about Rosewall's achievements and victories - 40-50 years on. Nevermind the pundits/commentators/experts of the time not ranking him so highly as you do either.
Most of what you say is Nonsense, however, here is a fact for you. In 1977, which is in the open era, 43 year old Rosewall ended the year ranked #12. When the open era began, Ken was 33. Laver, Sampras, and Federer won their last slam at 31. Rosewall was a top 20 player for 25 years. Trash him all you like but the fact IS, that Ken is a top 5 all time great player accomplishment wise, whether you think so or not. I will take the word of the tennisbase, Wikipedia experts and slasher over whatever you think, any day.Frankly many don't have a clue
Half of those official slams were in the amateur ranks, how many slams would Rosewall have in his 30's facing peak Djokovic? Quite possibly none. Yes you can only play who's in front of you so maybe you shouldn't put down Pancho's competition - which I would still hold against Rosewall's anyday of the week.
The tennisbase rankings are subjective, how they stack different criteria is irrelevant. It's an opinion and nothing more, it carries no more weight than mine or yours. I would argue if Rosewall was a greater player than Gonzalez he would have clearly topped him in the rankings before Pancho retired. Any ranking which puts Gonzalez 5 places below Rosewall is garbage. Also I contest Rosewall being a better all surface player that Federer, both have 1 clay major in an Open field. Roger never had the benefit of playing split fields.
Yes, they're just bitter about Rosewall's achievements and victories - 40-50 years on. Nevermind the pundits/commentators/experts of the time not ranking him so highly as you do either.
NatF
Bionic Poster
lol nice comeback, guess you can't actually respond to my points? Keep peddling that nonsense bozo. You bring up competition to put down Pancho then cry when I turn it round on you
I don't think I've ever questioned Rosewall's longevity or claimed he wasn't an incredible player...Like I said before I think he's arguably as high as #4 or as low as #7-#8.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Top 5 all time and yet hardly ever No 1 in his own time? Hmmm...
PS. Taking the word of "Wikipedia experts" is never a good thing
I never said Ken was #1 or 2, I said in the top 5. I put him at #3 but will settle for 4 or 5-LOL! It is very hard to compare players of eras as distant as Laver-Rosewall to FedDalOvic.lol nice comeback, guess you can't actually respond to my points? Keep peddling that nonsense bozo. You bring up competition to put down Pancho then cry when I turn it round on you
I don't think I've ever questioned Rosewall's longevity or claimed he wasn't an incredible player...Like I said before I think he's arguably as high as #4 or as low as #7-#8.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I recall you calling Rosewall #2 previously, perhaps I imagined it or misunderstood. Disagreements about Rosewall can get unusually tense
Agree about it being hard to compare eras, it's impossible to do it objectively.
Rusty Shackleford
G.O.A.T.
That, plus Nadal achieved incredible feats on all surfaces. Clay (no comment), grass (5 times Wimbledon finalist, 2 times champion, won against the GOAT in the surface in the best match ever), HC (3 slams, beating two of the best in slam finals, winning the US HC Summer Swing).
Sampras did crap on clay. He was a one trick pony.
Rusty Shackleford
G.O.A.T.
How is Sampras better than Nadal? Djokovic? LMFAO.
Rusty Shackleford
G.O.A.T.
Federer wasn't winning slams at 18 either (which Nadal did). See what I did there?
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Goes without saying . Which one is more admirable and out of the normal ?
Rusty Shackleford
G.O.A.T.
I think both are, and neither are very common.
6august
Hall of Fame
Currently Pete is better than Nadal at:
- AO
- Wimby
- USO
- WTF
- Weeks No. 1
- Year No. 1
He's better than Djokovic at:
- Wimby
- USO
- Weeks No. 1
- Year No. 1
...
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Comparing players from different eras is a fun, but ultimately pointless exercise, the same as with racing drivers.
For example saying Borg was better/worse/less or more great than Fedal etc. is great conjecture but nothing more.
Imagine in another 200 years when so many greats will have come and gone ...Impossible to compare.
Consider this for example ....
If it's fun, then it's not pointless.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
On fast surfaces, how is Sampras not better than Nadal and Djokovic?
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Kramer, Segura, Sedgman and Trabert were weak competition? Segura was arguably the best player in the world for several years in the early 50's. Trabert almost won the Grand Slam in 1955 losing only in the Australian Nationals. No, Segura did not use 2 hands on all shots, only on his forehand from the ground, which some considered the best shot in the game.
abmk
Bionic Poster
the delusions .......Sampras was a great all-court player. (could play at the baseline or at the net)
Just didn't have enough patience on clay for Bo5.
Nadal on indoor HC is only slightly better than sampras was on clay.
I gotta agree with Mac. And I'm a die hard Agassi fan. Federer is the goat. He just didn't match up well against Nadal. What's amazing and I think many take it for granted...is that even in the last few years Federer has been right there...aaaalllmost winning slams. Until his recent knee injury he has been almost super human. If not his record then his artistic mastery of the racket makes him the goat. Even if Djockavic breaks his record, or Nadal, they will never have the poetic touch and breathless strokes that define the goat...Roger Federer.
