Whats your top 10 of all time now (men)

NatF

Bionic Poster
What if somebody claims the 20s , 30s and 40s and 50s weak and they were worse athletes than today though and the era was weaker?

I guess a lot of footage can still be found from 80s and 90s so it’s easier to compare peaks.
As long as they're consistent that's their opinion (y) I think the athletic difference relative to medical science and the different era's is often overstated. I care about play and dominance relative to peers.
 

RS

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic costing himself USO 20 and AO 22 wins and Wim 20 not being played and the long injury period which helped Fedal back even more so Fed cuts the inflation era thing a lot.

He should be ranked ahead of Fed as of now.
 

RS

G.O.A.T.
As long as they're consistent that's their opinion (y) I think the athletic difference relative to medical science and the different era's is often overstated. I care about play and dominance relative to peers.
What’s the most far back tennis footage you have watched?
 

Beerus

Semi-Pro
Djokovic being the moral equal to PETE at Wimbledon is the ultimate proof point for the inflation era.
Remember the order of Slams when Wimbledon got cancelled? USO, FO, AO and then FO again. Djokovic knew that he had to pound Nadal at the FO to keep himself in the Slam race.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Remember the order of Slams when Wimbledon got cancelled? USO, FO, AO and then FO again. Djokovic knew that he had to pound Nadal at the FO to keep himself in the Slam race.
Nadal has inflated his resume a lot as well with mediocre play and draws, but he's been the moral GOAT since 2012 because of his injuries.
 

RS

G.O.A.T.
Remember the order of Slams when Wimbledon got cancelled? USO, FO, AO and then FO again. Djokovic knew that he had to pound Nadal at the FO to keep himself in the Slam race.
If Djokovic wins 3rd FO then tennis is done.
 

Beerus

Semi-Pro
If Djokovic wins 3rd FO then tennis is done.
Djokovic can end the GOAT debate if...

1. He defends his FO title this year.
2. He then boycotts Wimbledon and Nadal loses to some journeyman before QF.

Nadal would never recover from that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS

RS

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic can end the GOAT debate if...

1. He defends his FO title this year.
2. He then boycotts Wimbledon and Nadal loses to some journeyman before QF.

Nadal would never recover from that.
The peak threads and Djokovic deserves 3/4 Wim titles still wont die.
 

jl809

Rookie
1. Djokovic
2. Nadal
3. Federer
4. Laver
5. Borg
6. Sampras
7. Rosewall
8. Lendl
9. Tilden
10. Agassi

Really can’t believe I’m still seeing Federer ranked above Djokovic by some. That book is closed even if Federer gets to 21 and Djokovic still stays on 20 by some freak twist of fate. People also talk about an inflation era as if Federer himself didn’t benefit with 2 slams out of it
 
Please how is Rosewall above Federer, Sampras and Borg. That calls for some explanation!
More majors than those guys. Greatest longevity of all time. Fed drops in the rankings because hes now 3rd behind Nadal/Djokovic. You can't throw someone to the top of the list when they let 2 guys overtake him in his own era. Sampras dominated but not enough Not enough masters titles for overrall body of work. . Borg dominated but retired too early and has no HC slam
 
Last edited:
1. Djokovic
2. Nadal
3. Federer
4. Laver
5. Borg
6. Sampras
7. Rosewall
8. Lendl
9. Tilden
10. Agassi

Really can’t believe I’m still seeing Federer ranked above Djokovic by some. That book is closed even if Federer gets to 21 and Djokovic still stays on 20 by some freak twist of fate. People also talk about an inflation era as if Federer himself didn’t benefit with 2 slams out of it

Yea I dont get that either. Everything of importance Djokovic surpassed Fed on. The book is still open between Nadal/Djokovic. Not sure how that plays out though. This year may determine it
 

davced1

Hall of Fame
More majors than those guys. Greatest longevity of all time. Fed drops in the rankings because hes now 3rd behind Nadal/Djokovic. You can't throw someone to the top of the list when they let 2 guys overtake him in his own era. Sampras dominated but not enough Not enough masters titles for overrall body of work. . Borg dominated but retired too early and has no HC slam
Ok so you count some non grand slam events as "majors". Interesting, which ones? I'm not that familiar with the before open era pro circuit.
I googled and there where some professional majors he won. This was way before my time so I can't judge the importance of those but surely they can't be considered equal to an Open era grand slam?
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Ok so you count some non grand slam events as "majors". Interesting, which ones? I'm not that familiar with the before open era pro circuit.
I googled and there where some professional majors he won. This was way before my time so I can't judge the importance of those but surely they can't be considered equal to an Open era grand slam?
Sometimes the best pre-Open tournaments were non-Pro Slam, with stronger fields, more prestigious locations, and more money. You have to look at each one separately.
 

dryeagle

New User
I can only rank the players I saw, so from 1980 onward....

1. Nadal
2. Djokovic
3. Federer
4. Borg
5. Sampras
6. Lendl
7. McEnroe
8. Becker
9. Agassi
10. Edberg
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
Djokovic is ahead of Fed but not by a lot.
It's certainly possible to make a case for Fed > Djoko, particularly if you place more value on W and USO. Fed also 'wins' on the style front....guy was always a joy to watch. Djoko more physicality in his game, IMHO. But, I do think Djoko has edged ahead (which I always thought he would). I have a hard time putting Nadal in front of them on GS alone, as the FO simply dominates his trophy case. But his AO win really makes me re-appraise him. It's really, really close with these 3, no question.
 

Drob

Hall of Fame
It's certainly possible to make a case for Fed > Djoko, particularly if you place more value on W and USO. Fed also 'wins' on the style front....guy was always a joy to watch. Djoko more physicality in his game, IMHO. But, I do think Djoko has edged ahead (which I always thought he would). I have a hard time putting Nadal in front of them on GS alone, as the FO simply dominates his trophy case. But his AO win really makes me re-appraise him. It's really, really close with these 3, no question.
I think his 29-1 record in Davis Cup (5 titles and going undefeated after losing in Carpet as a teenager) and his 2 Gold Medals (1 Singles, 1 Doubles) should give him extra consideration in the debate. In addition, no player has a winning record in bo5 matches against him (minimum 2 wins) the same can't be said about the other two. I still rate Laver the GOAT but I think t's it's almost a draw between Nole and Nadal for second place.
 

Drob

Hall of Fame
I think his 29-1 record in Davis Cup (5 titles and going undefeated after losing in Carpet as a teenager) and his 2 Gold Medals (1 Singles, 1 Doubles) should give him extra consideration in the debate. In addition, no player has a winning record in bo5 matches against him (minimum 2 wins) the same can't be said about the other two. I still rate Laver the GOAT but I think t's it's almost a draw between Nole and Nadal for second place.
Absolutely, yes, you are right. But, he was the real spearhead of One (1) Davis Cup Championship under traditional format (his play at the 2019 team competition in 2019 at Madrid was swell, but it weren't Davis Cup). I think he was very important to the Moya-led Cup of 2004 and he contributed well to two other Cup champs, but in a kind-of limited fashion. Nevertheless, even discounting 2019, his 24-1 (or whatever) D.C. singles record is pretty magnificent on its own. The D.C. that I would call the Nadal-led Cup was 2011.
 

Drob

Hall of Fame
If everyone agreed, there would be no discussion. Life would be dull.
Yeah, I understand. It is not your list. And I am glad to have it. And thanks. But sometimes posters think "like" means agree, or "tends to agree" and so I clarified.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Does Davis Cup count in the debate?
I think winning important ties over top opponents count as big matches. But that's kinda it. IIRC Nadal's record is superb but it's mostly home ties on clay rather than generally more difficult away meetings. Few meetings against other top players compared to the glory days of Davis Cup as well.
 
If we have a discussion about what DC matches count or have more value, then it becomes a bit subjective. Should the early Rod Laver DC wins mean less since he played against Amateurs and Professionals weren't allowed until 1973? It would be difficult to compare the DC accomplishments of Harry Hopman to the recent "big 4" of Tennis since it's different eras and formats. However, in this context my original post was comparing Nadal's accomplishments in "National Representation" to his biggest 2 rivals, and this is a no-brainer that his record and wins in DC and Olympics are better than both ND and Fed. Perhaps only Andy Murray who won 2 Gold Medals and was 31-3 in DC could rival Nadal's record in National Representation. Nadal beat ND both in Olympics and Davis Cup (3-straight sets) and he is collectively 39-3 in Singles. Even in 2016 when he had a bad wrist, he still won a Gold Medal in Doubles. Moreover, Nadal won bo5 matches on indoor HC (his kryptonite) and defeated GS slam champs as Roddick, Delpo, and Joker. He also has an Indoor HC win against Karen Khachanov who won the Paris Indoors in 2018. If you want to talk about an inflated DC record, then look at Baghdatis who had a 36-win streak by defeating mainly marginal players in RR matches. Borg's 33-win streak was definitely carrying bigger names than Baghdatis. Yet, even a good portion of Borg's wins also came in Clay like Nadal so are we going to demean Borg as well?

If you want to trivialize, minimize, or denigrate accomplishments then should we question the 37 M1000 wins that Joker has? Remember, even Nadal and Fed both have multiple M1000 titles that required a bo5 final. In addition, Joker won the ATP Cup in Australia the country where he won 9 slams. Am I going to belittle or put an asterisk on those wins? Not me. The fact that Nadal won many matches in Spain makes the presumptuous claim that it's his favorite country to play. Nadal wasn't even born in the mainland of Spain. The guy is from an Island that speaks a different dialect and most of his biggest success comes in France (RG, MC), Rome, and Barcelona which NONE of the DC matches were played. Nadal won DC matches (both singles and doubles) in Denmark, Belgium, Germany, and India so really it's a stretch to say his only wins came in Spain. As for 2019 the guy won 5 singles matches and 3 doubles matches in a week played on Indoor HC so yes he should get maybe just a little credit even if it's not bo5 or the old DC format.
 

Drob

Hall of Fame
I think winning important ties over top opponents count as big matches. But that's kinda it. IIRC Nadal's record is superb but it's mostly home ties on clay rather than generally more difficult away meetings. Few meetings against other top players compared to the glory days of Davis Cup as well.

Good point, Nat.

DC does not really give Nadal the kind of "Legacy Boost" it does to others in history, from, for example, Cochet, Perry, Cramm, Sedge, Muscles, Ashe, Borg, McEnroe, Becker, et al.

His best opponents:


Roddick, Clement and Stepanek in 2004

Roddick 2008

Djokovic, Berdych 2009

del Potro, Gasquet, Tsonga 2011

Zeverev 2018


But 24-1 is something good.
 
Last edited:

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
If we have a discussion about what DC matches count or have more value, then it becomes a bit subjective. Should the early Rod Laver DC wins mean less since he played against Amateurs and Professionals weren't allowed until 1973? It would be difficult to compare the DC accomplishments of Harry Hopman to the recent "big 4" of Tennis since it's different eras and formats. However, in this context my original post was comparing Nadal's accomplishments in "National Representation" to his biggest 2 rivals, and this is a no-brainer that his record and wins in DC and Olympics are better than both ND and Fed. Perhaps only Andy Murray who won 2 Gold Medals and was 31-3 in DC could rival Nadal's record in National Representation. Nadal beat ND both in Olympics and Davis Cup (3-straight sets) and he is collectively 39-3 in Singles. Even in 2016 when he had a bad wrist, he still won a Gold Medal in Doubles. Moreover, Nadal won bo5 matches on indoor HC (his kryptonite) and defeated GS slam champs as Roddick, Delpo, and Joker. He also has an Indoor HC win against Karen Khachanov who won the Paris Indoors in 2018. If you want to talk about an inflated DC record, then look at Baghdatis who had a 36-win streak by defeating mainly marginal players in RR matches. Borg's 33-win streak was definitely carrying bigger names than Baghdatis. Yet, even a good portion of Borg's wins also came in Clay like Nadal so are we going to demean Borg as well?

If you want to trivialize, minimize, or denigrate accomplishments then should we question the 37 M1000 wins that Joker has? Remember, even Nadal and Fed both have multiple M1000 titles that required a bo5 final. In addition, Joker won the ATP Cup in Australia the country where he won 9 slams. Am I going to belittle or put an asterisk on those wins? Not me. The fact that Nadal won many matches in Spain makes the presumptuous claim that it's his favorite country to play. Nadal wasn't even born in the mainland of Spain. The guy is from an Island that speaks a different dialect and most of his biggest success comes in France (RG, MC), Rome, and Barcelona which NONE of the DC matches were played. Nadal won DC matches (both singles and doubles) in Denmark, Belgium, Germany, and India so really it's a stretch to say his only wins came in Spain. As for 2019 the guy won 5 singles matches and 3 doubles matches in a week played on Indoor HC so yes he should get maybe just a little credit even if it's not bo5 or the old DC format.
I do not wish to be too technical, but the professionals were often playing Davis Cup as of 1968.
Was the Smith/Nastase Davis Cup match in 1972 between two amateurs or between two professionals?
Obviously, they were both professionals at that time.
The myth that the pros were not allowed to play in Davis Cup before 1973 is just that, a myth.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
If we have a discussion about what DC matches count or have more value, then it becomes a bit subjective. Should the early Rod Laver DC wins mean less since he played against Amateurs and Professionals weren't allowed until 1973? It would be difficult to compare the DC accomplishments of Harry Hopman to the recent "big 4" of Tennis since it's different eras and formats. However, in this context my original post was comparing Nadal's accomplishments in "National Representation" to his biggest 2 rivals, and this is a no-brainer that his record and wins in DC and Olympics are better than both ND and Fed. Perhaps only Andy Murray who won 2 Gold Medals and was 31-3 in DC could rival Nadal's record in National Representation. Nadal beat ND both in Olympics and Davis Cup (3-straight sets) and he is collectively 39-3 in Singles. Even in 2016 when he had a bad wrist, he still won a Gold Medal in Doubles. Moreover, Nadal won bo5 matches on indoor HC (his kryptonite) and defeated GS slam champs as Roddick, Delpo, and Joker. He also has an Indoor HC win against Karen Khachanov who won the Paris Indoors in 2018. If you want to talk about an inflated DC record, then look at Baghdatis who had a 36-win streak by defeating mainly marginal players in RR matches. Borg's 33-win streak was definitely carrying bigger names than Baghdatis. Yet, even a good portion of Borg's wins also came in Clay like Nadal so are we going to demean Borg as well?

If you want to trivialize, minimize, or denigrate accomplishments then should we question the 37 M1000 wins that Joker has? Remember, even Nadal and Fed both have multiple M1000 titles that required a bo5 final. In addition, Joker won the ATP Cup in Australia the country where he won 9 slams. Am I going to belittle or put an asterisk on those wins? Not me. The fact that Nadal won many matches in Spain makes the presumptuous claim that it's his favorite country to play. Nadal wasn't even born in the mainland of Spain. The guy is from an Island that speaks a different dialect and most of his biggest success comes in France (RG, MC), Rome, and Barcelona which NONE of the DC matches were played. Nadal won DC matches (both singles and doubles) in Denmark, Belgium, Germany, and India so really it's a stretch to say his only wins came in Spain. As for 2019 the guy won 5 singles matches and 3 doubles matches in a week played on Indoor HC so yes he should get maybe just a little credit even if it's not bo5 or the old DC format.
This whole discussion is subjective. There is no doubt that Nadal's record in Davis Cup, whatever the context, is very impressive - it could hardly be better as far as win/loss goes. However there is also no doubt that Nadal also played in mostly favourable conditions. He played 25 matches in Davis Cup, I refuse to count anything after 2018 as real Davis Cup, 19 of those were clay, 2 carpet and 4 were HC. The highest ranked player he beat in those conditions was Kiefer at #47. Your point about him not being born on the mainland of Spain as if that means he wasn't playing home ties with massive crowd support on his favourite surface is rather bemusing to be frank. He deserves kudos for taking care of business with such ruthless efficiency at home but he doesn't have a single stand out away win apart from maybe 2004 versus Roddick? Pretty sure he was the massive bookies favourite in basically every other match. I wasn't comparing his record to Djok or Fed's either, more saying that's it's not the boost to his legacy that you're saying. There's a lot of strawman or misrepresentation here - as I'm assuming this is mostly directed at me. I didn't say his only wins came in Spain, I said most. Which is true. Yes he has wins elsewhere but mostly over lower ranked players. So yeah it's a nice record and the OGS is nice too but it's not a big boost to his legacy.

Also I rate Amateur Era achievements lower than Pro achievements and clearly lower than OE achievements aswell. I also value BO5 masters wins a little higher as well, though I wouldn't asterisk them...
 
Last edited:

NatF

Bionic Poster
Good point, Nat.

DC does not really give Nadal the kind of "Legacy Boost" it does to others in history, from, for example, Cochet, Perry, Cramm, Sedge, Muscles, Ashe, Borg, McEnroe, Becker, et al.

His best opponents:


Roddick, Clement and Stepanek in 2004

Roddick 2008

Djokovic, Berdych 2009

del Potro, Gasquet, Tsonga 2011

Zeverev 2018


But 24-1 is something good.
For sure it's a great record, he's undefeated in home ties in singles IIRC. Which is very good. But when you apply context and realise he's played so few away games and never against top players it starts to make a little sense. He would have been a massive betting favourite basically all of those matches bar against Roddick in 2004.
 
Gonzales > Laver > Rosewall
Federer > Djokovic > Nadal
based on total playing quality, leave figure skating to stat sheets

Not sure how to compare the Old 3 to the New 3 except than Pancho is GOAT of course.

After that, Tilden > Borg > Sampras
No way to compare Tilden properly tennis-wise but he was the groundbreaker of his day, the first global tennis star (along with Lenglen among women) who took tennis to new heights of professionalism. That's worth great respect. Borg over Sampras based on more dominant peak/prime considering era constraints and circumstances (Borg's early retirement = ITF's massive fail).

The tenth place has a lot of options, don't want to bother with that.
 

RS

G.O.A.T.
I would have Pete over Borg for the 3 extra slams that’s a big gap.

But Borg retired early so what if will always be around.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I would have Pete over Borg for the 3 extra slams that’s a big gap.

But Borg retired early so what if will always be around.
Borg only competed regularly at 3 slams. His best dominant period is only surpassed by Federer, he also won far more tournaments and was more versatile. There's definitely a debate to be had.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
1. Djokovic
2. Nadal
3. Federer
4. Laver
5. Borg
6. Sampras
7. Rosewall
8. Lendl
9. Tilden
10. Agassi

Really can’t believe I’m still seeing Federer ranked above Djokovic by some. That book is closed even if Federer gets to 21 and Djokovic still stays on 20 by some freak twist of fate. People also talk about an inflation era as if Federer himself didn’t benefit with 2 slams out of it
You can't compare 2 slams with 8 and 7 respectively.

Plus, even in the career inflation era, Fed at 38 was tasked with winning a slam by beating 3 younger GOATS while Djokodal get away with far less.
 

jl809

Rookie
You can't compare 2 slams with 8 and 7 respectively.

Plus, even in the career inflation era, Fed at 38 was tasked with winning a slam by beating 3 younger GOATS while Djokodal get away with far less.
This may just be me using different definitions :( Imo in the inflation era, not all slams are inflated. It’s not right to lump 2017 FO Nadal in with 2022 AO Nadal, because the former would have destroyed any clay courter of this century so far not called Rafael Nadal. 2019 AO Djoker, who was lights-out brilliant in the semis and final, should not be lumped in with 2020 AO Djoker, who was a mess. Similarly it’s not good to lump 2017 AO Fed in with 2017 USO Nadal because 1 had Nishi, Stan and Rafa B2B and the other had MehPo and Anderson.

Imo none of Nadal’s FOs have been inflations. 2 had lights out tennis in them and the other 2 were just “good” by his standard, which is still really high by the standards of CC tennis this century. Again though this could just be semantics.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
This may just be me using different definitions :( Imo in the inflation era, not all slams are inflated. It’s not right to lump 2017 FO Nadal in with 2022 AO Nadal, because the former would have destroyed any clay courter of this century so far not called Rafael Nadal. 2019 AO Djoker, who was lights-out brilliant in the semis and final, should not be lumped in with 2020 AO Djoker, who was a mess. Similarly it’s not good to lump 2017 AO Fed in with 2017 USO Nadal because 1 had Nishi, Stan and Rafa B2B and the other had MehPo and Anderson.

Imo none of Nadal’s FOs have been inflations. 2 had lights out tennis in them and the other 2 were just “good” by his standard, which is still really high by the standards of CC tennis this century. Again though this could just be semantics.
Rafa was playing at a good/great level in those indeed, but so was Fed in several slams in 2014-2016 and 2019 and he walked away with nothing. I don't think 2018-2020 RG Nadal was really better than Fed at 2014/2015/2019 Wimb's.
 

jl809

Rookie
Rafa was playing at a good/great level in those indeed, but so was Fed in several slams in 2014-2016 and 2019 and he walked away with nothing. I don't think 2018-2020 RG Nadal was really better than Fed at 2014/2015/2019 Wimb's.
But by that logic I could say we can give Djoker some +1s for RG 14 and 15 for example? This is where I’m super confused about definitions and how we are doing the comparisons, apologies. Might look up if there are good threads about inflation on here
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
This may just be me using different definitions :( Imo in the inflation era, not all slams are inflated. It’s not right to lump 2017 FO Nadal in with 2022 AO Nadal, because the former would have destroyed any clay courter of this century so far not called Rafael Nadal. 2019 AO Djoker, who was lights-out brilliant in the semis and final, should not be lumped in with 2020 AO Djoker, who was a mess. Similarly it’s not good to lump 2017 AO Fed in with 2017 USO Nadal because 1 had Nishi, Stan and Rafa B2B and the other had MehPo and Anderson.

Imo none of Nadal’s FOs have been inflations. 2 had lights out tennis in them and the other 2 were just “good” by his standard, which is still really high by the standards of CC tennis this century. Again though this could just be semantics.
I agree.
I'd rate inflation slams = not playing at even near prime-ish level AND not having even moderate draw
So that's 1 slam for fed (AO 18)
3 for nadal (USO 17, USO 19, AO 22)
4 for Djoko (AO 20/21, Wim 19/21)

But I'd class 16 onwards as the inflation era in general.
 

RS

G.O.A.T.
mike danny, post: 16395259, member: 427497"]
Rafa was playing at a good/great level in those indeed, but so was Fed in several slams in 2014-2016 and 2019 and he walked away with nothing. I don't think 2018-2020 RG Nadal was really better than Fed at 2014/2015/2019 Wimb's.
You say this but you didn't want to give Fed more than one vs this Nadal at RG ;)
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
[QUOTE mike danny, post: 16395259, member: 427497"]
Rafa was playing at a good/great level in those indeed, but so was Fed in several slams in 2014-2016 and 2019 and he walked away with nothing. I don't think 2018-2020 RG Nadal was really better than Fed at 2014/2015/2019 Wimb's.
You say this but you didn't want to give Fed more than one vs this Nadal at RG ;)
[/QUOTE]
Talking about the tournaments that took place, not a hypothetical.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
But by that logic I could say we can give Djoker some +1s for RG 14 and 15 for example? This is where I’m super confused about definitions and how we are doing the comparisons, apologies. Might look up if there are good threads about inflation on here
I mean, I don't see any evidence on why Rafa was better. Fed beat the other best players he faced with relative ease before running into peak/prime Djokovic in 2014/2015 and a stringer than 2020 Djokovic in 2019.
 
Top