Jump to content

Who is the greatest Tennis player of all time?


bones

Who is the greatest Tennis player of all time?  

  1. 1.

    • Federer
      19
    • Laver
      1
    • Sampras
      3
    • Nadal
      5
    • Borg
      1
    • Rosewall
      0
    • None of these.
      0
    • Someone else.
      1


Recommended Posts

Very interesting statistics for people with an open mind to learn new things. For all the talk of slow courts the serve stats have been more or less unchanged in the last 20 years at slams. In fact the number of aces hit at Wimbledon have actually increased in the last 10 years than the decade before that. This was very surprising to me. image006.png
Awesome Analysis. This settles things a lot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awesome Analysis. This settles things a lot.
It makes one thing clear. That serve is as much dominant now as it was in the 1990s. If you serve well you are rewarded equally well. What changed vastly is what happens after the serve if it's not an ace. Wimbledon is a good benchmark to talk these things as of the playing conditions the grass court tennis has changed the most. Tennis on grass before the 1990s were also not about an all out attacking serve as it went on to become in the 1990s. In the 1990s because of the huge improvement of the racquets and strings the quality of serves started to increase a lot and it reached a point where people were complaining how boring it had become. That is the main reason behind introducing a different composition of grass and increasing the hardness of the court in the 2000s. The following video explains it quite well. p3SmrwGg1gE Personally I think serve and volley can still work on grass but there is nobody that plays it well enough. Federer is NOT a serve and volleyer, he does it occasionally with mixed success. He started his career as one but after not getting any success changed his style to baseline. It was easier for him to make that switch because he grew up in Europe playing on clay. Grass is still a very very different surface from other courts despite the increased bounce from the 1990s. But there is no incentive of learning SnV as there is no reward outside grass which is basically limited to one tournament of any worth now. IMO players like Sampras would still be successful on grass playing the same style as he did back then.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agree with Muloghonto partly that Nadal benefited from slower surfaces,no way in hell Chang was as good as Nadal. But then again players from the not so distant past like M.Stich and to some extent even Ivanisevic (who are grand slam winners)wouldn't stand a chance now. A Guy like Jim Courier would be a total beast. It's could woulda shoulda. While in my book Fed>Nadal but Nadal is definetely a Top 5 material accross all eras.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Guy like Jim Courier would be a total beast.
Jim Courier was a total beast for a couple of years in early 90s too. He was winning almost everything. After that he just couldn't keep it up, not because the courts suddenly became faster or anything.
It's could woulda shoulda. While in my book Fed>Nadal but Nadal is definetely a Top 5 material accross all eras.
See how easy it is. That's a fair statement and no one would argue against that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See how easy it is. That's a fair statement and no one would argue against that.
Yep absolutely.....It is like putting down Lara's credibility to say SRT was the greatest....We are lucky to witness 2 G.O.A.T players around the same time. Sampras-Agassi,Becker-Lendl-Edberg,Mcnroe-Connors-Bjorg era almost looks lame in comparison and I don't even want to go to a time when likes of Korda,Rafter and later Safin,Roddick,Hewitt were dominating. As per this topic though if it is male then Fed....But across all genders(SInce it says Greatest Tennis player) have to go with Martina Navratilova-she is like the bradman of Tennis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is the greatest Tennis player of all time?

Agassi calls Nadal as #1, Federer #2 all time. Now muloghonto would start hating Agassi. :cantstop: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/tennis/top-stories/Agassi-picks-Nadal-over-Federer-as-all-time-best/articleshow/34823187.cms
Sure Agassi is entitled to his opinion.IIRC , he had said this a few months back. All credit to Nadal for making himself relevant in the GOAT debate. In a lighter vein Agassi might also be suggesting that the player with the lesser number of GS titles and weeks at number 1 can be considered a greater player.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure Agassi is entitled to his opinion.IIRC ' date=' he had said this a few months back.[/quote'] No it is a new statement, reported by AFP just yesterday. Continuing the lighter vein, or a player who has a 10-23 record against his main rival. :winky: On a more serious note, I have not voted on this thread and there is a good reason for that. I personally believe that there is no single GOAT player. Sure, most people are on the Federer bandwagon now. But what people fail to see is that someone like Laver has 11 slams of the 16 he contested and he didn't get to contest in his prime years from 23-28. That is the period when tennis players win most of their slams. Now imagine how many would he have ended up with otherwise. He would have had a Bradmanesque record that is untouchable. Laver also has two calendar year grand slams, outside his prime years. That is a freak achievement. Then there are other older players with 25 slams like Gonzales and Rosewell etc. So I find it very hard to name one single player as GOAT.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it is a new statement, reported by AFP just yesterday. Continuing the lighter vein, or a player who has a 10-23 record against his main rival. :winky: On a more serious note, I have not voted on this thread and there is a good reason for that. I personally believe that there is no single GOAT player. Sure, most people are on the Federer bandwagon now. But what people fail to see is that someone like Laver has 11 slams of the 16 he contested and he didn't get to contest in his prime years from 23-28. That is the period when tennis players win most of their slams. Now imagine how many would he have ended up with otherwise. He would have had a Bradmanesque record that is untouchable. Laver also has two calendar year grand slams, outside his prime years. That is a freak achievement. Then there are other older players with 25 slams like Gonzales and Rosewell etc. So I find it very hard to name one single player as GOAT.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/24/andre-agassi-roger-federer-pete-sampras_n_3984529.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it is a new statement, reported by AFP just yesterday. Continuing the lighter vein, or a player who has a 10-23 record against his main rival. :winky:
You seriously expect a right handed single hand backhand player to not sick against a double handed leftie ?? Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seriously expect a right handed single hand backhand player to not sick against a double handed leftie ??
Yes check Federer's record against other left handed players. Till 2011 Federer against all right handed players: 687-154 or 81.7% wins. Federer against all left handed players: 77-25 or 75.5% wins Federer against left handed players, excluding Nadal: 69-10 or 87.3%. Also in case you didn't notice it was said in the lighter vein, so don't lose your sleep over it. :winky:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes check Federer's record against other left handed players. Till 2011 Federer against all right handed players: 687-154 or 81.7% wins. Federer against all left handed players: 77-25 or 75.5% wins Federer against left handed players, excluding Nadal: 69-10 or 87.3%. Also in case you didn't notice it was said in the lighter vein, so don't lose your sleep over it. :winky:
Thats a fallacious argument . Obviously a goat like federee wouls cream most players, including lefties. I consider federer superior than nadal despite acknowlwsginf that obviously ar their peaks, nadal is going to b the favoeit in nadal vs federer. Nadal is an amazing player. He is, quitw literally, the best claycourter of all time. The point is, federers weakness against nadal hardly counts imo because nadal is so good a player that aided by this obvioius advantage ( easiest rally matchup is auto nadal best shot vs Federer worst shot.) , nadal being overall less than federer doesnt matter. Imo, in a perfect world,federer at his best runs tgrough any potential mqtchup better than nadal. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats a fallacious argument . Obviously a goat like federee wouls cream most players' date=' including lefties. [/quote'] That was a reply to your generalized statement saying that a single handed right handed player is destined to fail against lefties. Obviously that is not true. You are entitled to your opinions just like everyone else. I don't have any problem with that. :facepalm: it was obvious that those stats are not updated. I clearly mentioned that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was a reply to your generalized statement saying that a single handed right handed player is destined to fail against lefties. Obviously that is not true. You are entitled to your opinions just like everyone else. I don't have any problem with that. :facepalm: it was obvious that those stats are not updated. I clearly mentioned that.
There is a gulf of difference between nadal and a world nuimber 50. In similar skill brackets, a single handed rightie will lose more often than not against a double handed leftie. That much ahould b obviois. Tennis favors lefties. This is why lefties have won a far more disproportionate number of slams in the open era than the statistical mean. Nadals overwhelming record against federer is a factor of him matching up his greatest weapon- his forehand, to federers backhand, the weakest shot in the game. This is simple tennis 101. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a gulf of difference between nadal and a world nuimber 50. In similar skill brackets, a single handed rightie will lose more often than not against a double handed leftie. That much ahould b obviois.
The only left handed player that Federer struggles against is Nadal. He has a combined 15-0 record against top 10 and top 20 players like Verdasco or Feliciano Lopez. They are not number 50 players. Verdasco has been world number 7 at one point. He is seriously talented and like Nadal has a huge forehand. Yet Federer has beaten him quite easily every single time. So your generalization is unfounded. Only left handed player who has consistently been able take advantage of the match up with Federer ever since he was a teenager is Nadal. So give credit where it's due instead of finding excuses.
Tennis favors lefties. This is why lefties have won a far more disproportionate number of slams in the open era than the statistical mean.
I know that you don't have a penchant or aptitude for statistics but that statement is a statistical disaster. I could let you figure it out yourself but I doubt that you would be able to do that. So let me show you the fallacy in that argument. It takes only one R Nadal to screw that up in favour of lefties in the last 20 years. There have been only four lefty great players in the open era--Laver, Connors, McEnroe and Nadal. Their combined total of GS is enough to tilt it heavily towards lefties. That is NOT a proof that tennis favors lefties. If you want to do a comprehensive analysis take top 100 players for different time period in the open era and check the percentage of lefties. If it's significantly higher than the natural lefty percentage of 10% then statistically that argument will have some validity. Just because a few players have been good enough to win a lot of slams doesn't automatically proves that statistically lefties are at advantage. For example right now there are 11 left handed player in top 100, 4 in top 50 and 1 in top 20. Ever since I started watching tennis in 1997-98 I have seen only one great left handed player. But that one player is good enough to tilt the overall percentage. If it was so easy for lefties, there would be more. The bottom line is to reach the absolute top you have to be bloody good regardless of your preferred hand.
Nadals overwhelming record against federer is a factor of him matching up his greatest weapon- his forehand, to federers backhand, the weakest shot in the game. This is simple tennis 101.
No sh!t Sherlock! :cantstop:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may be right about the leftie thing being subject to more scrutiny but imo, there is a leftie advantage in how the mechanics of tennis works. Also, the number of gs winners in last 40-50 years is disroportionately high. Such disproportionality sustained over such a long period, albeit due to only a handful of individuals drives the conclusion that: A) tennis is an elitist sport, with only the top 1% players usually winning 99% of grand slams and B) on similar skill levels, lefties dominate. If a & b are taken in conjunction only and never seperately it explains why federer loses to nadal or connors had a winning rwcprd vs nastase but federer and nastase being otherwise dominant against other lefties. Also, if you agree that the matchup of nadal vs federer produces a contest between nadals best shot dieectly matched to federers worst as the dominant form of rallies, its then logically impossible to not see rhis as a factor to thwir lopsided head to head. So, if two players inherently matchup as ones best shot vs thw others worst shot, how can u use it as a factor to qhos better ? Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...