Top 10 Winningest Tennis Player of All Time

[The_Order]

I think more people consider Federer goat than Laver, Sampras, Nadal or Djokovic for that matter.

Who cares?

Look another Fed fan going on a rabid posting 'spree' trying to convince anyone that Fed is goat and it's not going to happen.

goat is an opinion, but when people say:

"Federer is the greatest of all time"

That is being stated as a fact. If you learn to read properly one day, go and read this chump's article and read that part in his description of Federer and realise that he is stating it like as if it's some fact when it isn't.

And don't try the majority rules path either, there was a time when the majority of people thought the Earth was flat...

 

[Povl Carstensen]

And don't try the majority rules path either, there was a time when the majority of people thought the Earth was flat...

Luckily we have moved on.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Who cares?

I don't mind if you don't care.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

goat is an opinion, but when people say:

"Federer is the greatest of all time"

That is being stated as a fact. If you learn to read properly one day, go and read this chump's article and read that part in his description of Federer and realise that he is stating it like as if it's some fact when it isn't.

All camps make the mistake of naming their favourite as the best/ goat etc., but I think everyone here realises that it is an opinion. So you are straw arguing on that one imo.
Btw, the author does not state it as a fact, he just backs up his opinion with facts.

 

[TMF]

Hypocrisy

All camps make the mistake of naming their favourite as the best/ goat etc., but I think everyone here realises that it is an opinion. So you are straw arguing on that one imo.
Btw, the author does not state it as a fact, he just backs up his opinion with facts.

It's ashamed that some posters attack the author just because he gave an opinion when they think they are entitled to their opinion(LOL). They are disturbed because their favorite player is either ranked too low or not on the author's list.

 

[NatF]

Sloppy, and you are right. I should have said that Rosewall probably would have been #1 those years if there had been a fair ranking system and a computer, but Gonzales was still winning the H2H. If you want to give Pancho a couple more years, I won't argue. Rosewall for the most part was sort of a "weak pro era champion".

He benefited from Gonzales' semi-retirement and the four year lead he had on Laver. Still, Rosewall has to get huge credit from some of his wins against Laver in the early Open Era.

I see it as mostly domination by Gonzales and Laver, with Rosewall third best but a very STRONG 3rd best in that strange era. Kramer at the top before Gonzales, of course.

To me it is pretty obvious which players after those were most dominant.

I think if the tour had been different with more focus on the majors perhaps Rosewall wouldn't of won as many. Anyway, the little master was certainly a great champion - transitional though he may be

His wins at the WCT finals were great for sure. He wasn't at the top spot for very long compared to other greats, but in terms of being near the top of the game he was perhaps there for as long as anyone. For some this might be the measure of true greatness.

 

[tennisaddict]

Who cares?

Look another Fed fan going on a rabid posting 'spree' trying to convince anyone that Fed is goat and it's not going to happen.

goat is an opinion, but when people say:

"Federer is the greatest of all time"

That is being stated as a fact.

When statements are backed by statistics, they become facts and they are not opinions any more.

Federer has the best records of all time and on all the most important metrics he comes ahead and hence rightfully anointed the greatest by most of the world including fellow players, analysts and historians.

Greatest does not mean he beats every single player who have taken a tennis racket , because that can never be proven.

Just like greatest president, greatest musician , greatest artist , greatest in a sport is not something 'notoional' , but a tangible, objective item.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

When statements are backed by statistics, they become facts and they are not opinions any more.

Federer has the best records of all time

No Grand Slam. You cannot pretend that is not the globally recognized, historic achievement it is--or that Federer was incapable of winning it.

hence rightfully anointed the greatest by most of the world including fellow players, analysts and historians.

Where is this "most of the world?" Grossly unsubstantiated pom-pom shaking is not fact. What is, however, is ex-pros not calling him the GOAT, such as Laver (who bumped him to best of his generation--and yes, I can repost the entire, real article--not a certain person's spin job of it from a Federer fan site...), McEnroe and Agassi, amongst others.

Greatest does not mean he beats every single player who have taken a tennis racket

That is obvious, as in any year of his career, he could not defeat all required to win the Grand Slam.

 

[Gary Duane]

I think if the tour had been different with more focus on the majors perhaps Rosewall wouldn't of won as many. Anyway, the little master was certainly a great champion - transitional though he may be

His wins at the WCT finals were great for sure. He wasn't at the top spot for very long compared to other greats, but in terms of being near the top of the game he was perhaps there for as long as anyone. For some this might be the measure of true greatness.

There are some similarities between Rosewall, Connors and Agassi. These players were all around a very long time, and their victories were more spread over long careers.

 

[The_Order]

Luckily we have moved on.

Just like you need to move on from this notion that Fed is goat.

All camps make the mistake of naming their favourite as the best/ goat etc., but I think everyone here realises that it is an opinion. So you are straw arguing on that one imo.
Btw, the author does not state it as a fact, he just backs up his opinion with facts.

Really?

The 17-time Grand Slam winner, also a men’s record, is the greatest tennis player of all time

That is stating it as a fact. If he said arguably the greatest, or many people believe or something like that, then it is not stating it as a fact. So, you're wrong.

When statements are backed by statistics, they become facts and they are not opinions any more.

This couldn't be more wrong. What if Federer was playing during the Borg era? Both of them then have a lower Wimbledon title count and all of a sudden Pete is the clear Wimbledon goat? :lol:

Fed's stats are there because of weaker opponents like Roddick and Hewitt and a 34+ year old Agassi. As a Nadal fan, if that's all Rafa had to deal with, I'd be pretty confident he's winning more majors as well. Same goes for Djokovic...

Federer has the best records of all time and on all the most important metrics he comes ahead and hence rightfully anointed the greatest by most of the world including fellow players, analysts and historians.

No he doesn't. LOL there are MANY players who played before it was possible to achieve the records Fed did. What about Laver being forced to miss the slams because he was a pro? and Pancho Gonzalez?

There was no open era back then so they could not possibly achieve what Fed did. It's impossible to compare, do their pro titles count for nothing?

You're another ignorant Fed worshiper.

Greatest does not mean he beats every single player who have taken a tennis racket , because that can never be proven.

Just like greatest president, greatest musician , greatest artist , greatest in a sport is not something 'notoional' , but a tangible, objective item.

Ahh it's clear now, you don't understand what the word greatest means.

It does mean he has to be able to beat everybody in each era and you're right it can't be proven which is my point all along.

It's just that you Fed fans get your panties twisted because your insecurity leads you guys to so desperately bestow an imaginary title to your hero to help you sleep better after all the pain the Nadal losses have caused.

 

[tennisaddict]

^^^All the 'what if' scenarios remain just that. They did not happen.

We can only go with what actually happened.

Greatest implies the one with the most achievements on the important metrics like Major titles, Weeks at Number 1, versatility, contribution on and off the court.

Fed wins hands down.

The one with the maximum achievement is the greatest in history.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

No what I mean is, GOAT is an opinion, but when I say there never can be a GOAT, I mean it can never be proven as a fact like the Fed fans try and do with it.

And the time machine stuff is NOT crap, only delusional people think you can categorically state a player as GOAT.

So I'm not surprised to see you here saying Fed is GOAT, especially with that goofy username...

I think the GOAT is the person who is most achieved.
No way do I or anyone else think that Fed would definitely beat all other players from history all the time.

Federer is the most achieved.
Thus IMO he is the GOAT.

 

[RF-18]

I think the GOAT is the person who is most achieved.
No way do I or anyone else think that Fed would definitely beat all other players from history all the time.

Federer is the most achieved.
Thus IMO he is the GOAT.

Some People doesn't know the difference between ''better'' and ''greater''.

If we had a time machine and could place Federer in all past eras to see if he could dominate them aswell, that would be good, but we can't do that.

What we can look at is who is the most achieveable. And federer on that department is ahead of any tennis player that has ever lived and thats a proven fact. The stats is there for everyone to see.

 

[Noleberic123]

Some People doesn't know the difference between ''better'' and ''greater''.

If we had a time machine and could place Federer in all past eras to see if he could dominate them aswell, that would be good, but we can't do that.

What we can look at is who is the most achieveable. And federer on that department is ahead of any tennis player that has ever lived and thats a proven fact. The stats is there for everyone to see.

I don't think we should compare different eras. Especially with the wooden racquets where there wasn't any topspin LOL. Let me ask you this what would nadal do with a wooden racquet?

 

[tennisaddict]

I don't think we should compare different eras. Especially with the wooden racquets where there wasn't any topspin LOL. Let me ask you this what would nadal do with a wooden racquet?

Abe Lincoln is regarded as the greatest President . No one says he didnt know anything about nuclear weapons and hence he doesnt qualify to be one.

 

[RF-18]

I don't think we should compare different eras. Especially with the wooden racquets where there wasn't any topspin LOL. Let me ask you this what would nadal do with a wooden racquet?

But don't you think we can compare achievements?

 

[The_Order]

More sooking, more twisting of the word greatest.

There was no open era before 1968.

The players who played before that achieved different things that today's players can't achieve.

So you want to talk about achievements well you can only then say Fed has achieved the most in the open era.

Whether those achievements translates to him being greatest, well that's an opinion.

Fed fans are like computers and only look at numbers. Which isn't surprising when really you guys know deep down that Fed had easier opponents to deal with than Nadal and Djokovic have.

 

[The_Order]

I don't think we should compare different eras. Especially with the wooden racquets where there wasn't any topspin LOL. Let me ask you this what would nadal do with a wooden racquet?

Federer hits with the second highest amount of topspin. In fact, his very important slice bh has the most backspin which wouldn't be possible with wooden racket either.

Djokovic wouldn't be able to generate his power from the bh on the full stretch with a wood racket either.

Every modern player would struggle with different technology.

 

[Noleberic123]

But don't you think we can compare achievements?

Yes we can! But i thought you said that if we put fed in a time machine he would dominate any era. So im confused :-?

 

[Noleberic123]

Federer hits with the second highest amount of topspin. In fact, his very important slice bh has the most backspin which wouldn't be possible with wooden racket either.

Djokovic wouldn't be able to generate his power from the bh on the full stretch with a wood racket either.

Every modern player would struggle with different technology.

Exactly my point. The reason I only mention nadal is because of his extremely heavy topspin.

 

[tennisaddict]

More sooking, more twisting of the word greatest.

There was no open era before 1968.

The players who played before that achieved different things that today's players can't achieve.

So you want to talk about achievements well you can only then say Fed has achieved the most in the open era.

Whether those achievements translates to him being greatest, well that's an opinion.

Fed fans are like computers and only look at numbers. Which isn't surprising when really you guys know deep down that Fed had easier opponents to deal with than Nadal and Djokovic have.

'Federer is the greatest achiever of the open era' , ok ?

 

[RF-18]

Yes we can! But i thought you said that if we put fed in a time machine he would dominate any era. So im confused :-?

No . I said IF we could put Federer in past eras, in order to determine if he would be able to dominate those eras, that it would be something good for us to see. But as we all know, it's impossible to make something like that possible. We will never know how todays players would adapt and thats why I'm saying achievements is what we can look at.

 

[Noleberic123]

No . I said IF we could put Federer in past eras, in order to determine if he would be able to dominate those eras, that it would be something good for us to see. But as we all know, it's impossible to make something like that possible. We will never know how todays players would adapt and thats why I'm saying achievements is what we can look at.

Oh okay I get ya! :lol:

 

[The_Order]

'Federer is the greatest achiever of the open era' , ok ?

That's perfectly fine. But it's quite different from being greatest OF ALL TIME now isn't it?

 

[Povl Carstensen]

That's perfectly fine. But it's quite different from being greatest OF ALL TIME now isn't it?

Yes, but that does not mean he is not the greatest of all time.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Just like you need to move on from this notion that Fed is goat.

I have not said he is goat. And I just said the world has moved on since then.

That is stating it as a fact. If he said arguably the greatest, or many people believe or something like that, then it is not stating it as a fact. So, you're wrong.

You are right, I overlooked that. But still as I said, people of all camps do this all the time. This is a discussion board, people voice their opinions. If it were a fact, no need to discuss. I am pretty sure the author realises that also.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Fed fans are like computers and only look at numbers. Which isn't surprising when really you guys know deep down that Fed had easier opponents to deal with than Nadal and Djokovic have.

I think Federers playing style also has something to do with why many consider him goat, but ofcourse his numbers are good too.

 

[TMF]

That's perfectly fine. But it's quite different from being greatest OF ALL TIME now isn't it?

Greatest player and achievements go hand-in-hand. Other goat like Phelps or Gretzky are the greatest achiever in their sport.

 

[pc1]

Sloppy, and you are right. I should have said that Rosewall probably would have been #1 those years if there had been a fair ranking system and a computer, but Gonzales was still winning the H2H. If you want to give Pancho a couple more years, I won't argue. Rosewall for the most part was sort of a "weak pro era champion".

He benefited from Gonzales' semi-retirement and the four year lead he had on Laver. Still, Rosewall has to get huge credit from some of his wins against Laver in the early Open Era.

I see it as mostly domination by Gonzales and Laver, with Rosewall third best but a very STRONG 3rd best in that strange era. Kramer at the top before Gonzales, of course.

To me it is pretty obvious which players after those were most dominant.

Gary,

The way it worked in those days was that the World Championship Tours were the way you become number one and obviously the World Champion. Gonzalez in 1960 slaughtered the field in his World Championship Tour with a record of 49-8 including a 15-4 record against a peak Rosewall at age 25. Rosewall was a very distant 32-25. Segura was third at 22-28 and Olmedo last at 11-44. Pancho now KNEW HE WAS THE WORLD CHAMPION FOR 1960 by May! It was truly an awesome performance by Gonzalez. THe World Championship Tour was finished by May of 1960! So Pancho Gonzalez did not entered any of the Pro Majors for the year. Olmedo won the US Pro and Rosewall won the French Pro over Hoad in four sets. Rosewall also won Wembley over Segura in a very tough four set match 5-7 8-6 6-1 6-3. There was no reason for Gonzalez to enter the majors because he was assured of his World Championship. If he entered the majors I feel fairly confident he would have won at least one of them in 1960. I believe Gonzalez did not play that year after May. Not 100% certain but I believe so.
There was no need for him to play again that year once he won the World Title.

In 1961 Gonzalez again won the World Championship Tour over a group of players. This year however he did enter all three majors. Gonzalez won the US Pro over Sedgman, lost in the final of the French Pro to Rosewall and was upset by Hoad in the semi of Wembley which Rosewall won. He won five tournaments for the year including the very important Geneva Gold Cup on clay over Rosewall 8-6 6-0. Rosewall in 1961 won the two majors that I mentioned earlier and only three tournaments the entire year! So Gonzalez won the most important World Champion tour and a major. He won five tournaments including the Geneva and the Scandinavian Pro Indoor over a field with Rosewall, Hoad, Segura, Trabert, Gimeno and Olmedo. It's very clear Gonzalez was overwhelmingly number one in 1961.

Gonzalez retired in 1962 and not coincidentally Rosewall became number one.

Gary, if Pro Tennis had a different system Gonzalez would have prepared differently and imo probably would have done what he would have to do to become World Champion. I can tell for that under the system Gonzalez played under, he knew the World Championship Tour was his bread and butter. He never forgot how Kramer crushed him the first time and he was a has-been in his early twenties. Players usually didn't get a second chance but he did and he never gave it up.

There is no doubt that Gonzalez was number one in 1960 and 1961.

 

[RF-18]

Gary,

The way it worked in those days was that the World Championship Tours were the way you become number one and obviously the World Champion. Gonzalez in 1960 slaughtered the field in his World Championship Tour with a record of 49-8 including a 15-4 record against a peak Rosewall at age 25. Rosewall was a very distant 32-25. Segura was third at 22-28 and Olmedo last at 11-44. Pancho now KNEW HE WAS THE WORLD CHAMPION FOR 1960 by May! It was truly an awesome performance by Gonzalez. THe World Championship Tour was finished by May of 1960! So Pancho Gonzalez did not entered any of the Pro Majors for the year. Olmedo won the US Pro and Rosewall won the French Pro over Hoad in four sets. Rosewall also won Wembley over Segura in a very tough four set match 5-7 8-6 6-1 6-3. There was no reason for Gonzalez to enter the majors because he was assured of his World Championship. If he entered the majors I feel fairly confident he would have won at least one of them in 1960. I believe Gonzalez did not play that year after May. Not 100% certain but I believe so.
There was no need for him to play again that year once he won the World Title.

In 1961 Gonzalez again won the World Championship Tour over a group of players. This year however he did enter all three majors. Gonzalez won the US Pro over Sedgman, lost in the final of the French Pro to Rosewall and was upset by Hoad in the semi of Wembley which Rosewall won. He won five tournaments for the year including the very important Geneva Gold Cup on clay over Rosewall 8-6 6-0. Rosewall in 1961 won the two majors that I mentioned earlier and only three tournaments the entire year. So Gonzalez won the most important World Champion tour and a major. He won five tournaments, the Geneva, the Scandinavian Pro Indoor over a field with Rosewall, Hoad, Segura, Trabert, Gimeno and Olmedo. It's very clear Gonzalez was overwhelmingly number one in 1961.

Gonzalez retired in 1962 and not coincidentally Rosewall became number one.

Do you think Laver would still have won slams during those years, 60-62 if the slams were open for the pro field?

As oppose to Gonzales, he was a beast. Big, big Champion.

 

[pc1]

Do you think Laver would still have won slams during those years, 60-62 if the slams were open for the pro field?

As oppose to Gonzales, he was a beast. Big, big Champion.

If Laver was an amateur and had the same strength he had in real life and entered the majors without experience against these top pros (assuming the top pros were also the same strength they were in real life) I believe he would not have won a major in the years 1960 to 1962. However if Laver played Open Tennis all his life (assuming there was never an Old Pro Tour) and played these top players he may have won a number of majors. Remember Laver was initially slaughtered by Hoad and Rosewall when he first entered the Pros in 1963 shortly after winning the amateur Grand Slam. But we also have to remember how quickly Laver improved and adapted his game to the Pros. Laver was number two only to Rosewall by the end of the year and by 1964 he was perhaps the best player in the world. Laver won two Pro Majors that year and defeated Rosewall 15 out of 19 matches.

We all tend to play to the level of our competition. The Pro Tour in those days was unprecedented competition, perhaps the highest level in history in tennis. Legendary Pros like Gonzalez, Kramer, Hoad, Rosewall, Sedgman, Trabert, Segura were constantly playing each other often even in the early rounds. There were no easy matches. Rosewall himself said that once Open Tennis started the average level of competition in his case dropped. At least he said words to that effect.

Imo it's no coincidence that Laver's winning percentage went up when Open Tennis started because he could easily beat some of the easy marks in the early rounds which he didn't have in the Old Pro Tour.

I don't think Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad or Segura would have reached the level of play that they attained playing in the Old Pro Tour if Open Tennis was around.

I don't think it's odd that Gonzalez, Laver, Rosewall, Segura played to a late age relatively speaking on the Pro Tour. I think that they reached such high levels that even in a declining period in relative old age that they were still top notch players.

If Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Ferrer, Tsonga, Wawrinka, Berdych were constantly playing each other every week they would all improve. That's what happened in the Old Pro Tour.

Edit-Since we are discussing the Old Pro Tour there has always been a lot of disagreement on the subject of Roy Emerson and his greatness. Emerson never played the Old Pro Tour and remained an amateur. Emerson had an awesome record in the amateurs.

A lot of the disagreement involves Gimeno and Emerson. A poster used to vehemently argue that Gimeno was clearly superior to Emerson and frankly I agreed. However I did think that if Emerson turned Pro he may very well have surpassed Gimeno.

 

[Gary Duane]

Gary,

The way it worked in those days was that the World Championship Tours were the way you become number one and obviously the World Champion. Gonzalez in 1960 slaughtered the field in his World Championship Tour with a record of 49-8 including a 15-4 record against a peak Rosewall at age 25. Rosewall was a very distant 32-25. Segura was third at 22-28 and Olmedo last at 11-44. Pancho now KNEW HE WAS THE WORLD CHAMPION FOR 1960 by May! It was truly an awesome performance by Gonzalez. THe World Championship Tour was finished by May of 1960! So Pancho Gonzalez did not entered any of the Pro Majors for the year. Olmedo won the US Pro and Rosewall won the French Pro over Hoad in four sets. Rosewall also won Wembley over Segura in a very tough four set match 5-7 8-6 6-1 6-3. There was no reason for Gonzalez to enter the majors because he was assured of his World Championship. If he entered the majors I feel fairly confident he would have won at least one of them in 1960. I believe Gonzalez did not play that year after May. Not 100% certain but I believe so.
There was no need for him to play again that year once he won the World Title.

In 1961 Gonzalez again won the World Championship Tour over a group of players. This year however he did enter all three majors. Gonzalez won the US Pro over Sedgman, lost in the final of the French Pro to Rosewall and was upset by Hoad in the semi of Wembley which Rosewall won. He won five tournaments for the year including the very important Geneva Gold Cup on clay over Rosewall 8-6 6-0. Rosewall in 1961 won the two majors that I mentioned earlier and only three tournaments the entire year! So Gonzalez won the most important World Champion tour and a major. He won five tournaments including the Geneva and the Scandinavian Pro Indoor over a field with Rosewall, Hoad, Segura, Trabert, Gimeno and Olmedo. It's very clear Gonzalez was overwhelmingly number one in 1961.

Gonzalez retired in 1962 and not coincidentally Rosewall became number one.

It was a very confusing era, and you have information that is 1000 times better than anything I have. I simply have an overall view, and that is that Gonzales (González) was clearly the best in the world once he over-took Kramer and remained there for a very long time. He was 10 years older than Rosewall, obviously giving him an advantage early on, but his lifetime H2H against Rosewall was very favorable to him. I personally think that peak Gonzales may have been better than peak Laver, and I say that based on meetings between them later on, when Gonzales should have had no chances against Laver due to his age.

Gary, if Pro Tennis had a different system Gonzalez would have prepared differently and imo probably would have done what he would have to do to become World Champion. I can tell for that under the system Gonzalez played under, he knew the World Championship Tour was his bread and butter. He never forgot how Kramer crushed him the first time and he was a has-been in his early twenties. Players usually didn't get a second chance but he did and he never gave it up.

I think his anger was very largely due to being exploited and underpaid by Kramer. He was just a kid when he started out with Kramer, and we all know what being "Mexican" was like in the US at the time he grew up. To me he is unique because of how he made it to the top without the kind of support all the other great players got. The man was pure, raw talent.

 

[Gary Duane]

We all tend to play to the level of our competition. The Pro Tour in those days was unprecedented competition, perhaps the highest level in history in tennis. Legendary Pros like Gonzalez, Kramer, Hoad, Rosewall, Sedgman, Trabert, Segura were constantly playing each other often even in the early rounds. There were no easy matches. Rosewall himself said that once Open Tennis started the average level of competition in his case dropped. At least he said words to that effect.

I have tried to make the same point several times, unsuccessfully. I read Gonzales's book decades ago, and although it was prejudiced in his favor, it also gave a feel for what the pro life was like. It was brutal. All the top players today have never faced such hardships.

Imo it's no coincidence that Laver's winning percentage went up when Open Tennis started because he could easily beat some of the easy marks in the early rounds which he didn't have in the Old Pro Tour.

Exactly, and it is how he was able to get the grand slam at an age when most players simply would be too far past their peaks. It was a combination of two things - Laver was a hardened pro have played against only the best for a number of years, and the amateurs had not faced tennis of this level.

I don't think Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad or Segura would have reached the level of play that they attained playing in the Old Pro Tour if Open Tennis was around.

I agree.

I don't think it's odd that Gonzalez, Laver, Rosewall, Segura played to a late age relatively speaking on the Pro Tour. I think that they reached such high levels that even in a declining period in relative old age that they were still top notch players.

I have also made this same point. The fact that they remained competitive well into their 30s in a way no else has done - perhaps with the exception of Connors, Agassi and Fed, all in different eras - has to be considered.

If Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Ferrer, Tsonga, Wawrinka, Berdych were constantly playing each other every week they would all improve. That's what happened in the Old Pro Tour.

Full agreement.

And very well written post.

 

[okdude1992]

You're almost as defensive as Djokovic. Too bad you're not as good at it

Late to the party, but :lol::lol::lol:
Hilarious post. Especially considering the many times Chico has already "proved" that Djokovic is an "offensive shot maker" by running with one comment Federer made.

 

[The_Order]

Greatest player and achievements go hand-in-hand. Other goat like Phelps or Gretzky are the greatest achiever in their sport.

No they don't.

Federer would achieve 7 Wimbledon titles if he played in Borg era?

Then Borg is only RG champion...

Or, Sampras is WIM "GOAT"...

 

[The_Order]

Yes, but that does not mean he is not the greatest of all time.

It also doesn't mean that Fabrice Santoro isn't the goat.

If you don't have a point, don't post rubbish to embarrass yourself.

I have not said he is goat. And I just said the world has moved on since then.

Just like real tennis fans move on from GOAT talks.

You are right, I overlooked that. But still as I said, people of all camps do this all the time. This is a discussion board, people voice their opinions. If it were a fact, no need to discuss. I am pretty sure the author realises that also.

And the author is on this discussion board voicing his opinion is he?

Or is he writing an article?

Maybe if you asked yourself this question first, you wouldn't have made this stupid comment I put in bold.

I think Federers playing style also has something to do with why many consider him goat, but ofcourse his numbers are good too.

Completely subjective and ignorant comment.

Nadal's style has proven to be as close to impossible to beat on Bo5 clay as it can get. It's also a style that makes Federer cry. It's also a revolutionary style, no one has played or is currently playing like Rafa.

I see so many juniors all the time, trying to mimic the Nadal style, so maybe in the future there will be Nadal style players, but it's like nothing anyone has seen before.

And of course, Nadal's numbers are pretty damn good too and he's 5 years younger than Rogi and has been forced to miss a LOT of majors due to injury.

Also, before you start about his style, Novak has imo an even harsher movement style, he does splits and slides on HC like no other. He puts himself on the full stretch time after time and never even gets any injury to force him out of a major.

Nadal's injury problems are due to genetics and bad luck.

Just because in your opinion Roger has the best style, doesn't add anything to this 'goat' claim.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

It also doesn't mean that Fabrice Santoro isn't the goat.

Exactly. But more people have the opinion that Federer is the goat.

Just like real tennis fans move on from GOAT talks.

Well you certainly don't.

And the author is on this discussion board voicing his opinion is he?

Or is he writing an article?

Maybe if you asked yourself this question first, you wouldn't have made this stupid comment I put in bold.

He is still voicing his opinion.

Completely subjective and ignorant comment.

Nadal's style has proven to be as close to impossible to beat on Bo5 clay as it can get. It's also a style that makes Federer cry. It's also a revolutionary style, no one has played or is currently playing like Rafa.

I see so many juniors all the time, trying to mimic the Nadal style, so maybe in the future there will be Nadal style players, but it's like nothing anyone has seen before.

And of course, Nadal's numbers are pretty damn good too and he's 5 years younger than Rogi and has been forced to miss a LOT of majors due to injury.

Also, before you start about his style, Novak has imo an even harsher movement style, he does splits and slides on HC like no other. He puts himself on the full stretch time after time and never even gets any injury to force him out of a major.

Nadal's injury problems are due to genetics and bad luck.

Just because in your opinion Roger has the best style, doesn't add anything to this 'goat' claim.

I said nothing negative about Nadals style, just that a lot of people really like Federers style.