Who is the greatest of all??

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 55539
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted member 55539

Guest
I have read many comments and honestly they made me laugh a bit...
Before arguing I have few questions I would love to ask these tennis experts...

First question

what kind of competition are you talking about when you mentioned Borg, Mckenroe and Connors ?

Last years are defined by:
1) Different surfaces (in the 70's, 80's they were playing 3 tournaments on grass and one on clay)... That's why McEnroe won Wimbledon and US Open titles... he was a grass court player...
2) Slower grass surface today than before (so that the serve and volley player wouldn't dominate thaat much)... That's why McEnroe won wimbledon and Us Open titles.... serve and volley, and that's why Borg started losing against McEnroe... McEnroe for Borg was finally the first real challenge (connors being a baseliner like him)
3) Better materials (everyone can beat anyone because of the power they can generate with new materials)
4) Bettter middle ranking competition for sure (how many millions of professional players in the 70's compare to today). Today getting to a final is much more difficult than before. You could be eliminated by the number 50 in the world if he plays at his best...
5) Better fitness due to bettter training methods and doping
6) So many new countries in the game that before where nowhere (not having a penny to spend on tennis)

I answer the question myself...

McEnroe is a too incomplete player to play in today's game. The todays' game depth would be too much for him.
Federer records come from a allround skills and consistency that a guy like McEnroe could never had. It was ok back than because he really had to compete with two or three champions and on a super quick surface... otherwise... 0 slams...
Borg had a massive advantage compare to the other players. He was fit like nadal today but in the 70's (can you immagine, bringing the nowadys best doping solutions to the 70's? we would create monsters). Players back than were much slower and less fit than today. On top of it he had no competition beside Connors at the beginning and McEnroe for two years in the end
Connnors was consistent... but as soon as real competition (beside the one coming from Borg) showed up he was done...
A real competition in my humble opinion there was in the 80's with Lendl, Edberg, Wilander, Beker, still McEnroe, Courier... But let's remember that they were playing on similar surfacces all the time... Who told us that these players are not like the Rodddick, Nalbandian, Blake ones? If Federer and Nadal weren't there today's guys would have won a lot more slams don't you think? Those same players (McEnroe, Wilander..) admit that now the depth of the game is not comparable to before... Now there are such complete players that you cannot possibly immagine not be one and succede...
In the Sampras - Agassi era there has been a black hole in terms of competion. The only champion was Sampras. The rest (even Agassi) so and so.... Inconsistent players, players who used to compete only on one or two surfaces because of inhability of performing on the remaing ones. Sampras never got past the 5000 points in ranking and he used to dominate the ranking... Muster and moya got to number one wining two tournaments... But still the level of middle ranking players was so much higher than the previous decades. So... The Lendl's 19 finals are worth in my opinion less than the Samprass' 18 ... much less..
In the federer era, besides a super middle ranking level that keep improving, there were players like
Nalbandian (junior super talent, great player...), he hit the wall against Federer (in Federer best years)
Roddick. I think no one can say anything bad about a guy who played 7 finals and 4 semis and lost only against federer in those tournaments... Roddick could have had 6/7/8 slams under his name at this point Nadal or noot Nadal.... Hi hit the wall against Federer (in his best years)
Coria (the magician.. they called him that for a reason)
Hewitt... Today he has been destroyed mentally after so many years not winning. But in his early years he was a nightmare (the quarter finals against Roddick an example)
Blake, power to sell... Similar to courier. Great athlete and super powerful...
And on Top of all... the greatest ever on clay... Nadal... (winning statistics compare to the Borg ones are there for anybody to see)...
More recently Murray and Djokovic... true champions
In all of this... Federer is all over the place. He is not anymore in his best years (nadal, murray, djokovic are for istance) but he is still there when it counts...If he doesn't win a slam (playing anyway the final), he wins the other one because he is in the final as well...

Second question

How can you compare Laver and Federer?
Why don't we consider Sears as well playing in 1880? He won 7 consecutive UsOpen... Maybe at the time of Cesars in Rome there was similar game.. We could get those statistics too..
You can compare only the last years of laver were he won the second year slam... The first was with amateurs (his worst nemesis were Gonzalez and Emerson... by the way Gonzalez had beaten him several times... I think Laver has a losing record against him)
Did you know that Edberrg has a junior year slam? In 1983? So he has got a slam too... And didd you know that Monfils had almost won a junior slam as well? So Monfils is a three quater slam guy.. so is a 3/8 of laver player? Come on guys...
Competition when Laver played the first slam:
No Gonzalez and no Emerson because they had turned pro... those ones were the ones that usually had beaten him... the rest were spolied kids (it was a game for rich people back then)
when Laver turned pro, before the game was open to pro's Gonzalez won most of the matches against him.. When Gonzalez retired, the game was open to pro's..
Competition on the second slam:
The Australian open had 90 competetitors, the rest of the slams barely reached 100. To fill the gaps they probabily sold wild cards to amateurs, trainers, school teachers, bus boys. Average age in the tour 40 years old... come on guys... How can Laver even be considered in statistics? The 60's? Forget it, that was no tennis... it all begins in the 70's...

Federer numbers count off course, but more than the wins and the Slams... the consistency records... in the last 24 majors 20 finals, 3 semis... what the hell is that!! Who can ever match that!!! H2H don't because we ar talking about different ages... For example... Let's talk about swimming... Let's assume that Phelps doesn't win for a year and has got a losing record against many other swimmers and than he wins in the Olympics another 8 gold medals with world records and he beats them all... Who is greatest of all? Phelps I guess...it is just that Phelps doesn't need to win every time because he had won for many years every time... It is difficult forr him to find the same motivations...
Nadal got the best of him on clay for sure.. On other surfaces recently (last year wimbledon due probably to Federer mononucleosis). And all of this in NAdal's best year... Federer in his worst. Don't you see? In his worst year he was there in Final after Final... And than he got one at the third time asking... the USOpen... That's what's great about him. No matter how he feels or he is phisically or mentally... He is going to be there. And most of the time if he is in the mood (US Open final for example), he is still going to destroy you no matter who you are... Nadal, Murray or whoever...
 
no one player can be called the greatest of all time....only the greatest of their generation.

Fed is certainly the greatest of his generation.
 
You can't discount older players because they played on different surfaces to the players today. Guess what - players develop games for specific surfaces. You also need to get your facts straight - McEnroe didn't win any of his US Opens on grass.

As for the strength of player - give me a break. McEnroe's early career had Borg and Connors playing unbelievable stuff, Lendl was playing amazing during the same period as Mac, and at the end of his career he was up against Becker, Agassi and Sampras.

Anyone with a username like fed_is_GOD shouldn't be starting a thread like this IMO.
 
There were a lot of great players in the 70's all that could have won... as there are today. The difference... and the reason you tend to see the same players at the end of tournaments at all levels... is the 6 inches between the ears.

The big difference in the 70's was the variety of different styles being played.
 
fed_is_GOD said:
On other surfaces recently (last year wimbledon due probably to Federer mononucleosis). And all of this in NAdal's best year... Federer in his worst. Don't you see? In his worst year he was there in Final after Final...
Click to expand...

6sugef.jpg
 
Who is the greatest of all??
Click to expand...
davey25.

OP is from India, so he knows the concept of avatars.
Vishnu had 10 majors, then he retired.
davey25 already has 20+ and counting.

This is a no-contest. Federer, by the way, is not even in the conversation.
 
ROFL! Brilliant!

Polaris said:
davey25.

OP is from India, so he knows the concept of avatars.
Vishnu had 10 majors, then he retired.davey25 already has 20+ and counting.

This is a no-contest. Federer, by the way, is not even in the conversation.
Click to expand...
 
It's all hypothetical.

The only way you can compare with some accuracy is with statistics and achievements each player has/had produced across their career, and even that's debatable as back then some tournaments were valued less than what they are valued now(ie, AO, Masters 1000's).
 
There is no GOAT. It's a Yeti, a mystical creature, that exists only in the imagination of biased fans.

The criteria of comparison of players from different eras is flawed. Accomplishments CANNOT be measured with sound criteria. It's not a science, and so results will be, of necessity, subjective

If we want to say which is the tougher of two pieces of wood, we subject them to the exact same test, under the exact same conditions. We can't do that with Sampras, Federer, Laver and Borg. They all played different opponents, on surfaces which varied, even grass has changed withing ten years.

Do I think that Federer would have won so many Wimbledons if he'd played in the 90's, on fast grass?Who knows? What we DO know is that Federer can't be the best of Sampras's era, because he never played then. Nor can we measure his career and then transpose it onto thoroughly different conditions of another era and say there's the GOAT. That would be only opinion.

No of slams as the criteria for the better player? That only became an issue when Sampras chased that record, but Borg never even competed in Oz, apart from one time as a 17 year old, and won 11 slams, retired aged 25.
Had number of slams been a measure, he only needed two more to beat Emerson, he could have played a couple of OZ and took his total up. It never even dawned on him. Borg's measure was the calender year slam, which Laver has two of.

Again numbers don't tell all the story. Laver and Emerson were from the same era. I told someone that Emerson was better than Laver because of the numbers; but they laughed at me :)

Plus, I think we're too ready to dismiss the greatest achievement in tennis history - Laver's calender year slams, something he did TWICE! Borg couldn't do it a mere decade later. Connors couldn't do it five years later, though he might have had he played the FO.

We can have players as the best of their era, and after this, we only have opinion. I've seen a lot of great players in their prime, and just past it. To me the best I've seen is Sampras. I never saw anyone with so much authority on court! But can I prove he was best? Negative!

Ultimately to say that Federer is the Greatest ever or that he is better than the greats of the past (Sampras, Borg, Laver ) is an EGO investment of Federer fans.

Federer's numbers are incredible. He's surely the best of his era. His titles and records will always be his, and they ARE truly amazing! When he hangs his racquet he will considered as ONE OF the greatest to play the game.

Isn't that enough?
To me it seems quite a lot...
 
ksbh said:
Zeeshan Ali. No other player so much as touched Zeenat!
Click to expand...
You will have to give us a Zeeshan vs Safin detailed comparison if you want us to believe. Safin had many conquests to his name, how many did Zeeshan have ? Just one ?
Or else we will have to conclude that Zeeshan was a "one-slam" wonder.
 
Polaris said:
davey25.

OP is from India, so he knows the concept of avatars.
Vishnu had 10 majors, then he retired.
davey25 already has 20+ and counting.

This is a no-contest. Federer, by the way, is not even in the conversation.
Click to expand...

he he he , good one !

you are from India too ?
 
Who is the greatest 'who is the greatest of all time' thread creator? Long list, my pick is who the #$%% cares.
 
Sorry but.....

First question

what kind of competition are you talking about when you mentioned Borg, Mckenroe and Connors ?

Last years are defined by:
1) Different surfaces (in the 70's, 80's they were playing 3 tournaments on grass and one on clay)...

Actually there was about 25-30 tournaments a year on the schedule in the 70's and 80's - and on all surfaces. Goodness even further back in Laver's day he won 30 titles on hard court. It is just a complete myth that players only played on clay and grass in those days. If you are meaning the Grand Slams - the last times there was 3 on Grass and 1 on Clay was 1974. Hence before McEnroe's, Lendl's and Most of Borg's top level careers.


5) Better fitness due to bettter training methods and doping

Players today play a much easier regime than players did in the 1960's. Most matches back then were in 5 sets, whereas only Grand Slams have 5 sets. The quantity of matches the old time pro's played is also much higher. Hence, I think it is questionable that the players are fitter than then.

The Lendl's 19 finals are worth in my opinion less than the Samprass' 18 ... much less..

Lendl's finals opponents - Borg, Connors, Wilander, McEnroe, Pernfors, Becker, Mecir, Cash, Edberg - none of them easy at all (perhaps Pernfors would have been the weakest). In fact 6 out of those 9 were world number 1's! Not sure how you think they were less impressive wins for Lendl.
 
Fed is the greatest of all there really is no comparison. No one has dominated for longer than he has. And for the record I'm not some Fed fanboi I just really like tennis and play and follow the ATP Tour. The question should be who is the second greatest. Then you can really start comparing Johnny Mac. v. Laver v. Borg v. Sampras v. Gonzales v. Nadal etc. Heck, if you asked all those guys who the GOAT is they would probably say Fed.

These kinds of discussions are even more hysterical in Formula 1 racing because two of the greatest drivers ever, Aryton Senna and Jim Clark, both got killed mid-career, so no one knows if they could have accomplished more in the sport than Michael Schumacher who is the reigning king with 7 titles.
 
Polaris said:
davey25.

OP is from India, so he knows the concept of avatars.
Vishnu had 10 majors, then he retired.
davey25 already has 20+ and counting.

This is a no-contest. Federer, by the way, is not even in the conversation.
Click to expand...

Vishnu was owned by Kali in their primes.
 
^^ haha!

Do Federer or Nadal or Borg have consecutive NCAA titles ???

Som Dev Devvarman is the greatest...
 
P_Agony said:
HBK is, and always will be, the greatest of all time. Wait...wrong boards.
Click to expand...
No way dude. Ever heard of 'the best there is, the best there was, and the best there ever will be' ?

That's the Hitman, man. Not HBK :)

Hitman is the GOAT. He excelled on grass and clay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Greatest Players of All Time
Replies
34
Views
3K
oberyn
oberyn
G
Why Federer is Not the Greatest of All Time
2 3
Replies
141
Views
8K
LPShanet
L
hipolymer
An analysis of the greatest indoor players of all time, year by year.
Replies
9
Views
1K
Drob
Drob
1
  • Poll Poll
Who is the 2nd greatest player of the open era?
5 6 7
Replies
307
Views
14K
timnz
T
M
1980 U.S. Open Final - Greatest Match Ever?
Replies
32
Views
4K
ffw2
ffw2
Back
Top