I put Pete on the same level as Fed/Borg (yes I do consider Borg every bit as great as Fed: his dominance of Wimbledon and RG simultaneously is unique to the sport). The problem with placing Fed separate Djokovic/Nadal is that he only dominated 04-07, which isn't an "era" or "decade" like Pete had in the 90s. Furthermore, if you do this, you put Fed's competition in dire straits: his two greatest competitors for slams/in general are Roddick and baby Nadal (he played both 5 times during slams). I don't see how you can take that kind of 4 year dominance with that competition and compare it seriously to either Djokodal with Fed and Murray in supporting roles, or Pete in the 90s with ATGs and specialists for the first 6 years, and specialists and multi-time slam champs on every surface with Andre for the latter half of the 90s, or Borg/Mac/Connors/Lendl in the 80s. I think Fed for better or worse is part of the Djokodal generation, and is going to in all likelihood end up #3, thus barring him from GOAT contending, or putting him into a unique category where he's qualified based off the sheer volume of stats he accumulated.As of today i have Sampras ahead of Djokovic and behind Nadal Federer and Borg (not by much only because of lack of clay court success) . You are spot on. One has to be the best of their era.
Laver , Borg, sampras, Federer and nadal have been the best of their eras. Hard to compare Laver per se as the game was very differently run back then but as of today they have to be the big 5.
And yes Federer and Nadal are actually different eras. Anyone who thinks Federer post 2009 was peak Federer is new to the sport.
Last edited by a moderator: