Vanhool
Hall of Fame
But how does he get to be more winningest than Graf or Court then?
Top 10 Winningest Tennis Player of All Time
- Thread starter TMF
- Start date
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
Fed and Graf played a battle of the sexes to settle the dispute.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Facts can be proved. Prove it. Or at least give us a clue what you are basing this on.
Most money?
Most visible world-wide?
Because if you are going by records, even YE#1, you are right back to the exact things used for GOAT discussions.
I don't believe in a GOAT. But I also don't do what you have just done, claim that any one player is the most successful of all time. Of All Time is OAT. You are just leaving out the G...
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Wow what a weak attack.
First of all, I have way less posts than you do so no, I don't spend my life hating Federer.
All I do is state the obvious:
Nadal + Djokovic + Murray
>>>
Roddick + Hewitt + old Agassi
And now I'm a psychotic hater? LOL do you think the latter 3 opponents are tougher to beat than the former?
I've actually given Federer compliments many times on here, just the Fed fans that are actually psychotic which puts me right off.
Vanhool
Hall of Fame
I'm just saying, if you're mixing and using stats for the argument....
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
He does not lose his credibility because he is offering an opinion that for him Federer is the greatest of all time, an opinion which appears to be the majority opinion. I don't think there is such a thing as GOAT but the author's credibility does not go out the window because he does believe in GOAT.
.
Yes, but there have been plenty of lists which have lumped men and women together. For example the Tennis Channel list of a couple of years ago. It is not a crime as you are trying to make it out to be.
The truth is, Graf should probably be above Federer but the sporting world is a sexist place, sadly.
The overall list is a good one imo. There will always be things on any list that one disagrees with. There is no perfect list.
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
As I said in a previous post, Graf should probably be above Federer for "winningest" player. It is always a balancing act to make a list of this kind and there will always be issues with any list. Overall I think it is a fair list.
Federer is the most accomplished and successful male player of all time.
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
Federer is the most successful male player of all time in terms of many things, i.e. money earned, visibility and popularity world-wide, number of grand slams won which is the gold standard of tennis greatness, best weeks at number one stats, etc.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Most successful in the Open era cc0 but all time? I don't think so.
Chico
Banned
Pancho Gonzales says hi for the second time. He seems to be conveniently ignored.
Last edited:
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
You joined two years after me and 99% of your posts are about Federer hate. Please don't try and deny it.
First of all Murray is no better than Hewitt, they are equal so don't slide Murray into that mix like he is some sort of tennis God. As for Agassi, I like how you say "old" Agassi when Agassi won the majority of his slams when he was older as opposed to being 22. Agassi was and is one of the greatest tennis players of all time, more so still than Djokovic and certainly leagues above Murray. Also, Federer in his prime never had much of a problem vs Djokovic or Murray in slams. Prime Federer had one Achilles heel--Nadal.
I can understand that. All over the top arse-kissing fans are obnoxious. But what you do in response with your demeaning of Federer is not much better at times.
Let me ask you a question: Do you rank Federer above Nadal in terms of achievements at this time? Yes or no? Forget the h2h, I am talking about overall achievements.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Yep, Gonzales was considered the world's best player longer than Federer and Rosewall more majors than Fed did too. Then you also have Laver who achieved the Calendar Slam. Any of these guys could reasonably be ranked above Federer when discussing the greatest tennis players ever.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Yes he did lose all credibility because his opinion is based on wikipedia.
Also cut this majority crap. Like I said, there was a time when the 'MAJORITY' of humans thought the Earth was flat...
I'm not making it out as a crime, just pointing out that it's the wrong thing to do. I don't care about the tennis channel's stupid list either.
Well you can have your opinion, if you think it's ok to lump the women with the men and rate Emerson above Borg that's fine...
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
You are conveniently ignoring how I am defining most successful, i.e. money earned, popularity globally, etc. LOL at comparing Gonzalez to Federer on those variables.
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
The_Order, forget all of this nonsense. I want you to answer one question for me which you keep ignoring. Do you or do you not think Federer is above Nadal in terms of overall achievements at this time. Yes or no? Thanks.
And The_Order if you don't answer me, I will know you are a coward and not honest or objective in any way.
Last edited:
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Those things shouldn't make any player the greatest of all time though. And since you brought up money earned, that would mean that Djokovic is more successful than Nadal which I know you'll vehemently argue against.
Chico
Banned
That is irrelevant and not the fair comparison. Prize money is much higher now, tennis is more popular now.
Gonzales had no way to affect those, so your field is not even playing field.
The point is you can't just declare Fed the greatest of all time. There are players before the open era or partially in the open era who are arguably equal greater than him.
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
I am not using the label "greatest" of all time. There is no ONE greatest player of all time. There are many great players of all time. I am using the label most successful and accomplished of all time. For me that male player is currently Federer.
Forget Djokovic and Nadal, they are not comparable at this point in time. A seven slam gap is too much.
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
I am not calling Federer the greatest of all time. I am calling him the most successful and accomplished. You don't have to agree with me, I am secure with my opinion.
Chico
Banned
Those are some bogus categories. As I said irrelevant. Every new generation of players will be "more successful and accomplished".
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
So can we just all agree that there is no greatest of all time?
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
A coward LOL?
The only cowards on here are those that need to keep trying to argue a point based on crap.
In terms of overall achievements obviously Federer is above Nadal. Why did you desperately need me to answer that? I would've thought it's very obvious.
His article which you obviously didn't even read was based on domination of the sport and he went on to say Federer is the greatest player of all time which is rubbish.
There is no way that Emerson was more dominant than Borg and there is no way any player can be called greatest of all time. Maybe if you weren't such a coward you'd admit that...
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
It is only irrelevant to you because Djokovic is not at the top of that list.
I don't think even Chico would have expected Djokovic to be at the top of that list at this point in time.
Chico
Banned
It is only irrelevant to you because Djokovic is not at the top of that list.
There are no lists in those bogus "categories".
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
Wins 12 slams and that will change. Of course easier said than done but why not?? he is going to win the most slams out of anyone for years to come. But to be honest even 12 slams wont be enough
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
Ok, thanks. That is all I wanted to know. I honestly did not know your answer to that question.
I DO admit that.
But that overall list does not look bad to me at all. A few changes I would make but other than that, it is an ok list.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Wins 12 slams and that will change. Of course easier said than done but why not?? he is going to win the most slams out of anyone for years to come. But to be honest even 12 slams wont be enough
He won't win 12 slams and he certainly won't ever be considered the greatest/most successful player ever but if he gets to at least 9 majors then he'll probably finish his career as the best tier 2 player and that's still a career that any player should be extremely proud of.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
WTF are you on about, in 2 years I'm going to rack up over 6000 posts to match you? LOL.
And yeah I will deny that 99% of my posts are Federer hate.
Are you really that stupid? Where did I make Murray out to be a tennis God you clown? All I said was the COMBINATION of having to deal with NADAL + DJOKOVIC + MURRAY is a lot tougher than Roddick + Hewitt + old Agassi.
Agassi won the majority of his slams when he was older because the competition was at one of it's lowest points. Go check out his 03 AO draw and tell me he wouldn't have won it at age 24...
Fed would've had many more problems consistently beating Djokovic and Murray than he would Roddick and Hewitt.
Agassi at age 34 and 35 is fine, but when 26 year old Roger loses Wimbledon he's too old :lol:
How am I demeaning Federer? By saying his slam count is inflated? It is.
There is no way in hell he wins 11 majors in 4 years with prime Nadal, Djokovic and Murray around. Sorry to burst your bubble.
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
Most accomplished tennis player is not bogus. You would be singing a different tune if Djokovic was not levels below Federer and Nadal.
Chico
Banned
Please stop bringing Djokovic. It makes no sense and does not help your argument at all.
And no I would not be saying anything different.
What does "most accomplished" even mean in this context? How is it different than "the greatest"? Makes no sense.
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
I want him to finish with 11 slams. 11 slams is certainly not out of his reach. 2 this year and then another 2 for the rest of his career. Again why not?
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Because he's only won 3 in the last 3 years. For someone as great a player as Novak is, that is disappointing. I'll be genuinely surprised if he finishes on more than 9 slams when all is said and done.
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
oh djokovic2011........
He's my favourite player and I wish him all the very best and that he'll prove me wrong, but at the same time I gotta be realistic mate. :|
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
How many slams do you think Nadal will finish with?
How about Federer?
And Murray?
Which ones in your opinion will they win (if any)???
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
But we all know that this has not been your only gig on TTW as a poster. Don't insult our intelligence.
99% of your posts are trying to demean Federer's accomplishments in some way. I don't know why you try and deny it. Give us a break.
Insults are not called for. The combination of Nadal, Djokovic and Murray is not a lot tougher than the Roddick, Hewitt and Agassi combo. Sorry. As I said prime Federer only had a problem with Nadal in slams, nobody else.
Not prime Federer at the slams. That is your way of trying to demean Federer's accomplishments yet again.
Don't confuse me with some of those Fed nuts out there. For me Federer should NEVER have lost Wimbledon in 2008 to Nadal. For me Federer was still in his prime.
Yes, you are demeaning Federer by saying that. His slam count is not inflated. I could say that Nadal has won so many slams at the FO because his clay competition was weak and by doing that I would be doing the same thing as you are. What good does that do?
I say the ONLY player who could stop prime Federer at the slams would have been Nadal and Nadal took a while to get going at the grass and hc slams to meet Federer. Nadal could have stopped Federer off clay a lot more before 2008. Nadal was beating Federer on hc outside of the slams before 2008 so he should have been able to do it at the slams too but he did not.
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
I know your not asking me but here goes!
Djokovic- 11 slams- 2 more AOs, 1 RG and 1 USO
Nadal- 16 slams- 1 RG and a USO
Federer- 18 slams- 1 more wimbledon
Murray- 4 slams- 1 AO and 1 more wimbledon
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
I think Federer will finish on 17, Nadal on 15 and Murray on 3. Nadal will win RG this year and I believe Murray will win Wimbledon at least once more.
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
I really think he will have 9 by the end of this year!
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
I doubt that cc0. Prime Djokovic would have also stopped prime Federer between 04-07, at least at the AO.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
But we all know that this has not been your only gig on TTW as a poster. Don't insult our intelligence.
What intelligence? You obviously have nfi what you're on about.
Do you even know what 99% is? You're saying that apart from about 60 of my posts, all have been demeaning Federer LOL.
Again, if you want to live in fantasy world where Roger consistently beats prime Novak and Nadal in majors go ahead.
Neither are your stupid insults towards me. Each of Roddick + Hewitt + old Agassi are easier competition than just prime Djokovic alone, let alone adding a prime Nadal and Murray to that list.
Prime Federer didn't have problems with Novak because Novak was still a teenager. 2007 US Open final prime Roger should've lost the first 2 sets, against a more experienced Novak he would've.
Yes at the slams. Roddick only put up 1 tough match against Fed from 04-07 and that was WIM 04. Hewitt same, only 1 tough match US05.
Prime Djokovic and Murray would've certainly put up more than that.
Why should he never have lost?
Do you have any players in mind that would've stopped Nadal?
I know prime Nadal would've stopped Federer because they've played many times and you can see that Nadal is a nightmare for Federer.
Who have you seen play against Nadal and is a nightmare opponent for him, especially on clay?
He didn't because his game wasn't consistent enough on other surfaces. Nadal on clay is a whole different beast. He has been the best player on that surface since he started playing at RG.
It took him time on HC, till the age of 22 (coincidentally the same age as Federer) to reach his first HC slam title.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Prime Novak would've almost certainly beat Fed in AO06. Prime Nadal definitely would've.
Fed wasn't that great in AO04 either, both prime Nadal and Novak would've beat him there as well.
Prime Nadal would've stopped him in US04 and US05 as well. There's no denying it, if a 34 year old man is pushing him to 5 sets then prime Nadal is going to be a nightmare for him imo.
Chico
Banned
Of course he would. Baby Novak almost stopped prime Federer on USO 2007 and indeed stopped him on AO 2008.
Prime Djokovic would take quite a few slams from 04-07 Fed.
Federer would be clear favorite only at Wimbledon. Everywhere else it is a tossup.
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
Exactly right. I hate these delusional fans that think prime novak or prime nadal wouldn't stand a chance against prime fed even though novak beat him when he was only 20 and nadal beat him when he was 17 :lol:
so if novak as a 20 year old could straight set Federer at the AO in 2008 why cant a much better and experienced novak at the age of 27 do the same!? Remember montreal also in 2007 as well!
Similar threads
