Federer

[954gator]

Dude is a BEAST.   I hesitated to say this before, but he truly is the GOAT in my opinion.    Won his 20th slam at the age of 37.   

 

[Mjd33]

24 minutes ago, 954gator said:

the GOAT

This. 

Always bothered me when people said nadal was .... nadal is mostly a clay specialist so the head to head record vs Roger was skewed. Plus, nadal is a cheat.... blood doping guy. 

[maxchoboian]

33 minutes ago, 954gator said:

Dude is a BEAST.   I hesitated to say this before, but he truly is the GOAT in my opinion.    Won his 20th slam at the age of 37.   

 

 

Margaret Court would have worked him.

[CaliNorth]

26 minutes ago, Mjd33 said:

This. 

Always bothered me when people said nadal was .... nadal is mostly a clay specialist so the head to head record vs Roger was skewed. Plus, nadal is a cheat.... blood doping guy. 

How do you know Nadal does blood doping ? I have always thought that he used the leading edge of treatment available, just like Kobe and others  running off to Europe to get the latest treatments. But I never heard of any report coming out and accusing him using blood doping. Maybe augmenting  the blood platelet therapy with hormones, just like Kobe etc. I know this is why these athletes go to Europe  because it is not legal here.

[954gator]

1 hour ago, Mjd33 said:

This. 

Always bothered me when people said nadal was .... nadal is mostly a clay specialist so the head to head record vs Roger was skewed. Plus, nadal is a cheat.... blood doping guy. 

I think Nadal's pretty damn good, but he relied on his athleticism a lot and I don't think he will have the long career Fed has had.   He's still pretty damn amazing though.    It's just hard to maintain the level when you don't have a dominant serve in men's tennis.  

[maxchoboian]

40 minutes ago, 954gator said:

I think Nadal's pretty damn good, but he relied on his athleticism a lot and I don't think he will have the long career Fed has had.   He's still pretty damn amazing though.    It's just hard to maintain the level when you don't have a dominant serve in men's tennis.  

Hard to argue against Federer. Class guy, too.

[ThunderRam]

3 hours ago, Mjd33 said:

Plus, nadal is a cheat.... blood doping guy. 

Based upon what?

I find it odd that you accuse Nadal of cheating, yet after 5 years of winning next to nothing in majors suddenly Roger Federer is looking better than ever at 36 years old in a sport where men are historically over the hill by their late 20's and early 30's.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing Fed of anything since I have no direct knowledge. I'm just pointing out that, on the surface, what Federer is doing at 35,36 after 5 years of taking a backseat to Djokovic, Nadal, Murray and Wawrinka looks far more questionable.

3 hours ago, Mjd33 said:

This. 

Always bothered me when people said nadal was .... nadal is mostly a clay specialist so the head to head record vs Roger was skewed.

 

How is it skewed? Nadal has beaten Federer in grand slams on both grass and hard courts, which are Roger's best surfaces. But Fed has never beaten Rafa to win at Roland Garros. The only title Fed has there he didn't have to go through Nadal to get. But Rafa earned a Wimbledon and Aussie title going through Federer. He's won 2 slams on grass and 4 on hard courts. Not too bad for someone you consider him a clay court "specialist".

Let's not forget that Rafa also won an Olympic Gold Medal (not played on clay), something Fed has never been able to do.

[nptb17]

I could beat them both at table tennis.

[ThunderRam]

5 hours ago, 954gator said:

Dude is a BEAST.   I hesitated to say this before, but he truly is the GOAT in my opinion.    Won his 20th slam at the age of 37.   

 

 

Definitely among the best, no doubt. But as an avid follower of tennis since I was a kid, I have a hard time labeling him GOAT. Most accomplished in slams? Without a doubt. Although Nadal and Djokovic are both 5-6 years younger and still have time to match or get close to his slam numbers. They already have more Master Series titles than Fed does though. And Nadal has more success than both in Davis Cup play. The average fan only pays attention to the Grand Slams, but Masters Series and Davis Cup need to be factored in as well.

Federer rose to prominence at the end of the Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi era. He benefited from several years of having no serious competition (2003 to 2007) to win 12 of his slams before Nadal and Djokovic really rose to challenge him. Once that happened, Federer was nearly a footnote. He went nearly 5 years without winning a slam (2012 - 2017) and only made 3 appearances in a Final during that time.

His ability to rebound the past 13 months to win 3 GS titles after looking like he was done is certainly amazing. No doubt about that.

But, to me, you have to consider a lot of factors.

First off, the fact that Rafa has 16 slams and is even in striking distance of Roger's 20 is amazing when you really break it down. Everyone knows that Rafa absolutely dominates on clay like no other. Whereas Federer and Djokovic's games are better suited for the faster surfaces of hard court and grass. Well, 3 of the 4 slams each year are played on hard courts (2) and grass (1). That means that 3/4 of the slams are played on surfaces that better suit their style of play. That's akin to an NFL team being able to play 12 home games and only 4 road games every year. Wouldn't you expect them to win more than a team that has to play 4 home games and 12 road games?

The fact that Rafa is even close speaks to how good he actually is. He can actually win on the opponents best surfaces whereas they rarely do on his. Imagine if 3 of the 4 slams were played on clay -- or even just half of them? Who'd have more slams then? But nobody ever talks about that advantage.

Lastly, I'll also advocate for Bjorn Borg who won 11 slams in an 8 year period (1974 to 1981) and retired at just 25 years old.

What a lot of casual fans don't know is that there were essentially only 3 Grand Slam events back then. The Australian Open event was rarely played by the top tour stars of the day, up until 1987 when the venue went through a major overhaul. Prior to 1987, the grass surface and venue was so bad the likes of Borg, John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors generally skipped it.  Borg played there once and both McEnroe and Connors only twice (before 1987).

So Borg won 11 slams in an 8 season period and 7 of those in a 4 season period despite the handicap of only having 3 real slam events to play in. Consider that both Federer and Djokovic have now won 6 Aussie Open titles. Take those away and Borg has more slams than Djokovic and only 3 less than Federer despite competing for far less years. At the same age of 25, Fed had 7 Slams (minus the Australian) while Borg had 11. Sure, longevity plays a huge factor and Borg made the choice to retire when he did, but I still think it's worth mentioning.

Borg won the French Open and Wimbledon back-to-back 3 years in a row. Anybody that knows tennis knows that's extremely tough to do because most players aren't dominant on both surfaces. Pete Sampras and John McEnroe never won at the French. Players that are good on faster surfaces aren't normally near as good on the slower, high bouncing surface of clay and vice versa. That's what made Borg and even Rafa so special.

All in all, the GOAT is in the eye of the beholder. What do you personally happen to value more? Longevity? Someone that can multiple titles on all of the different surfaces and the Olympics? Someone that dominates on 1 or 2 surfaces?

Where ever you happen to fall, there's still history to be written. Will Roger get to 22, 23 or more? Will Rafa and/or Djokovic close the gap? Let's see how the next couple of seasons play out.

 

 

[maxchoboian]

17 minutes ago, ThunderRam said:

 

Definitely among the best, no doubt. But as an avid follower of tennis since I was a kid, I have a hard time labeling him GOAT. Most accomplished in slams? Without a doubt. Although Nadal and Djokovic are both 5-6 years younger and still have time to match or get close to his slam numbers. They already have more Master Series titles than Fed does though. And Nadal has more success than both in Davis Cup play. The average fan only pays attention to the Grand Slams, but Masters Series and Davis Cup need to be factored in as well.

Federer rose to prominence at the end of the Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi era. He benefited from several years of having no serious competition (2003 to 2007) to win 12 of his slams before Nadal and Djokovic really rose to challenge him. Once that happened, Federer was nearly a footnote. He went nearly 5 years without winning a slam (2012 - 2017) and only made 3 appearances in a Final during that time.

His ability to rebound the past 13 months to win 3 GS titles after looking like he was done is certainly amazing. No doubt about that.

But, to me, you have to consider a lot of factors.

First off, the fact that Rafa has 16 slams and is even in striking distance of Roger's 20 is amazing when you really break it down. Everyone knows that Rafa absolutely dominates on clay like no other. Whereas Federer and Djokovic's games are better suited for the faster surfaces of hard court and grass. Well, 3 of the 4 slams each year are played on hard courts (2) and grass (1). That means that 3/4 of the slams are played on surfaces that better suit their style of play. That's akin to an NFL team being able to play 12 home games and only 4 road games every year. Wouldn't you expect them to win more than a team that has to play 4 home games and 12 road games?

The fact that Rafa is even close speaks to how good he actually is. He can actually win on the opponents best surfaces whereas they rarely do on his. Imagine if 3 of the 4 slams were played on clay -- or even just half of them? Who'd have more slams then? But nobody ever talks about that advantage.

Lastly, I'll also advocate for Bjorn Borg who won 11 slams in an 8 year period (1974 to 1981) and retired at just 25 years old.

What a lot of casual fans don't know is that there were essentially only 3 Grand Slam events back then. The Australian Open event was rarely played by the top tour stars of the day, up until 1987 when the venue went through a major overhaul. Prior to 1987, the grass surface and venue was so bad the likes of Borg, John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors generally skipped it.  Borg played there once and both McEnroe and Connors only twice (before 1987).

So Borg won 11 slams in an 8 season period and 7 of those in a 4 season period despite the handicap of only having 3 real slam events to play in. Consider that both Federer and Djokovic have now won 6 Aussie Open titles. Take those away and Borg has more slams than Djokovic and only 3 less than Federer despite competing for far less years. At the same age of 25, Fed had 7 Slams (minus the Australian) while Borg had 11. Sure, longevity plays a huge factor and Borg made the choice to retire when he did, but I still think it's worth mentioning.

Borg won the French Open and Wimbledon back-to-back 3 years in a row. Anybody that knows tennis knows that's extremely tough to do because most players aren't dominant on both surfaces. Pete Sampras and John McEnroe never won at the French. Players that are good on faster surfaces aren't normally near as good on the slower, high bouncing surface of clay and vice versa. That's what made Borg and even Rafa so special.

All in all, the GOAT is in the eye of the beholder. What do you personally happen to value more? Longevity? Someone that can multiple titles on all of the different surfaces and the Olympics? Someone that dominates on 1 or 2 surfaces?

Where ever you happen to fall, there's still history to be written. Will Roger get to 22, 23 or more? Will Rafa and/or Djokovic close the gap? Let's see how the next couple of seasons play out.

 

 

Good points.

If 3 of the 4 Grand Slams were played on clay, who's to say Federer wouldn't have grown up perfecting his clay game? 

Nadal is right up there, as are his shorts in his crack. For that reason, I'm out on him.

I loved Borg, and think he and Federer are the top 2, but also do think longevity is a significant piece of GOAT consideration, and give the nod to Roger.

 

[golfaddict1]

32 minutes ago, ThunderRam said:

 

Definitely among the best, no doubt. But as an avid follower of tennis since I was a kid, I have a hard time labeling him GOAT. Most accomplished in slams? Without a doubt. Although Nadal and Djokovic are both 5-6 years younger and still have time to match or get close to his slam numbers. They already have more Master Series titles than Fed does though. And Nadal has more success than both in Davis Cup play. The average fan only pays attention to the Grand Slams, but Masters Series and Davis Cup need to be factored in as well.

Federer rose to prominence at the end of the Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi era. He benefited from several years of having no serious competition (2003 to 2007) to win 12 of his slams before Nadal and Djokovic really rose to challenge him. Once that happened, Federer was nearly a footnote. He went nearly 5 years without winning a slam (2012 - 2017) and only made 3 appearances in a Final during that time.

His ability to rebound the past 13 months to win 3 GS titles after looking like he was done is certainly amazing. No doubt about that.

But, to me, you have to consider a lot of factors.

First off, the fact that Rafa has 16 slams and is even in striking distance of Roger's 20 is amazing when you really break it down. Everyone knows that Rafa absolutely dominates on clay like no other. Whereas Federer and Djokovic's games are better suited for the faster surfaces of hard court and grass. Well, 3 of the 4 slams each year are played on hard courts (2) and grass (1). That means that 3/4 of the slams are played on surfaces that better suit their style of play. That's akin to an NFL team being able to play 12 home games and only 4 road games every year. Wouldn't you expect them to win more than a team that has to play 4 home games and 12 road games?

The fact that Rafa is even close speaks to how good he actually is. He can actually win on the opponents best surfaces whereas they rarely do on his. Imagine if 3 of the 4 slams were played on clay -- or even just half of them? Who'd have more slams then? But nobody ever talks about that advantage.

Lastly, I'll also advocate for Bjorn Borg who won 11 slams in an 8 year period (1974 to 1981) and retired at just 25 years old.

What a lot of casual fans don't know is that there were essentially only 3 Grand Slam events back then. The Australian Open event was rarely played by the top tour stars of the day, up until 1987 when the venue went through a major overhaul. Prior to 1987, the grass surface and venue was so bad the likes of Borg, John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors generally skipped it.  Borg played there once and both McEnroe and Connors only twice (before 1987).

So Borg won 11 slams in an 8 season period and 7 of those in a 4 season period despite the handicap of only having 3 real slam events to play in. Consider that both Federer and Djokovic have now won 6 Aussie Open titles. Take those away and Borg has more slams than Djokovic and only 3 less than Federer despite competing for far less years. At the same age of 25, Fed had 7 Slams (minus the Australian) while Borg had 11. Sure, longevity plays a huge factor and Borg made the choice to retire when he did, but I still think it's worth mentioning.

Borg won the French Open and Wimbledon back-to-back 3 years in a row. Anybody that knows tennis knows that's extremely tough to do because most players aren't dominant on both surfaces. Pete Sampras and John McEnroe never won at the French. Players that are good on faster surfaces aren't normally near as good on the slower, high bouncing surface of clay and vice versa. That's what made Borg and even Rafa so special.

All in all, the GOAT is in the eye of the beholder. What do you personally happen to value more? Longevity? Someone that can multiple titles on all of the different surfaces and the Olympics? Someone that dominates on 1 or 2 surfaces?

Where ever you happen to fall, there's still history to be written. Will Roger get to 22, 23 or more? Will Rafa and/or Djokovic close the gap? Let's see how the next couple of seasons play out.

 

 

GOAT imo likely down to two... and one of them was taking a pic of the other with his 20th slam trophy.  

 

 

 

[ThunderRam]

34 minutes ago, maxchoboian said:

Good points.

If 3 of the 4 Grand Slams were played on clay, who's to say Federer wouldn't have grown up perfecting his clay game?

Good point, and something we just don't know. Hell, in that situation, maybe even some other player(s) would have come to prominence?

Rafa has been so dominant on clay and his physical gifts such a perfect fit for playing a defensive game on that surface, I have a hard time believing the tide could have been turned the other direction. Fed just doesn't have the same ability to track balls and hit winners from defensive positions as Rafa and even Djokovic do. They are best defenders in the sport, by far.

34 minutes ago, maxchoboian said:

I loved Borg, and think he and Federer are the top 2,

Borg, like a lot of players long gone, is very underrated. I remember watching him as a kid and seemed like he was unbeatable. He sure as hell frustrated McEnroe like no other. I truly believe that had he been able to stick it out and had the Aussie Open been in play during his career, these guys would still be chasing his Slam numbers. Dude was unreal and could dominate on any surface.

34 minutes ago, maxchoboian said:

but also do think longevity is a significant piece of GOAT consideration, and give the nod to Roger.

But what about the other events besides Slams? These guys spend more of the year playing Master Series and Rafa and Djokovic have been better. Davis Cup is also a big event. In a calendar year, there's more than just 4 slam tournaments. To me, it would like be only counting the races at Daytona, Talledega, Charlotte and the Brickyard in NASCAR. Those are among the biggest races of the year, but there are 32 more races along the way.

 

 

[ORabidOne]

6 hours ago, 954gator said:

Dude is a BEAST.   I hesitated to say this before, but he truly is the GOAT in my opinion.    Won his 20th slam at the age of 37.   

 

Is tennis a sport? Shouldn't this be on the OTHER shit page?

[maxchoboian]

3 hours ago, ThunderRam said:

 

But what about the other events besides Slams? These guys spend more of the year playing Master Series and Rafa and Djokovic have been better. Davis Cup is also a big event. In a calendar year, there's more than just 4 slam tournaments. To me, it would like be only counting the races at Daytona, Talledega, Charlotte and the Brickyard in NASCAR. Those are among the biggest races of the year, but there are 32 more races along the way.

 

 

World rankings in tennis take all play into account, not just the Grand Slams, and Federer has been ranked #1 more weeks than any other male player ever. He's at the top in a lot more than just Grand Slams. He'd probably win a few of the NASCAR races too.

[CaliNorth]

6 hours ago, ThunderRam said:

 

Definitely among the best, no doubt. But as an avid follower of tennis since I was a kid, I have a hard time labeling him GOAT. Most accomplished in slams? Without a doubt. Although Nadal and Djokovic are both 5-6 years younger and still have time to match or get close to his slam numbers. They already have more Master Series titles than Fed does though. And Nadal has more success than both in Davis Cup play. The average fan only pays attention to the Grand Slams, but Masters Series and Davis Cup need to be factored in as well.

Federer rose to prominence at the end of the Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi era. He benefited from several years of having no serious competition (2003 to 2007) to win 12 of his slams before Nadal and Djokovic really rose to challenge him. Once that happened, Federer was nearly a footnote. He went nearly 5 years without winning a slam (2012 - 2017) and only made 3 appearances in a Final during that time.

His ability to rebound the past 13 months to win 3 GS titles after looking like he was done is certainly amazing. No doubt about that.

But, to me, you have to consider a lot of factors.

First off, the fact that Rafa has 16 slams and is even in striking distance of Roger's 20 is amazing when you really break it down. Everyone knows that Rafa absolutely dominates on clay like no other. Whereas Federer and Djokovic's games are better suited for the faster surfaces of hard court and grass. Well, 3 of the 4 slams each year are played on hard courts (2) and grass (1). That means that 3/4 of the slams are played on surfaces that better suit their style of play. That's akin to an NFL team being able to play 12 home games and only 4 road games every year. Wouldn't you expect them to win more than a team that has to play 4 home games and 12 road games?

The fact that Rafa is even close speaks to how good he actually is. He can actually win on the opponents best surfaces whereas they rarely do on his. Imagine if 3 of the 4 slams were played on clay -- or even just half of them? Who'd have more slams then? But nobody ever talks about that advantage.

Lastly, I'll also advocate for Bjorn Borg who won 11 slams in an 8 year period (1974 to 1981) and retired at just 25 years old.

What a lot of casual fans don't know is that there were essentially only 3 Grand Slam events back then. The Australian Open event was rarely played by the top tour stars of the day, up until 1987 when the venue went through a major overhaul. Prior to 1987, the grass surface and venue was so bad the likes of Borg, John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors generally skipped it.  Borg played there once and both McEnroe and Connors only twice (before 1987).

So Borg won 11 slams in an 8 season period and 7 of those in a 4 season period despite the handicap of only having 3 real slam events to play in. Consider that both Federer and Djokovic have now won 6 Aussie Open titles. Take those away and Borg has more slams than Djokovic and only 3 less than Federer despite competing for far less years. At the same age of 25, Fed had 7 Slams (minus the Australian) while Borg had 11. Sure, longevity plays a huge factor and Borg made the choice to retire when he did, but I still think it's worth mentioning.

Borg won the French Open and Wimbledon back-to-back 3 years in a row. Anybody that knows tennis knows that's extremely tough to do because most players aren't dominant on both surfaces. Pete Sampras and John McEnroe never won at the French. Players that are good on faster surfaces aren't normally near as good on the slower, high bouncing surface of clay and vice versa. That's what made Borg and even Rafa so special.

All in all, the GOAT is in the eye of the beholder. What do you personally happen to value more? Longevity? Someone that can multiple titles on all of the different surfaces and the Olympics? Someone that dominates on 1 or 2 surfaces?

Where ever you happen to fall, there's still history to be written. Will Roger get to 22, 23 or more? Will Rafa and/or Djokovic close the gap? Let's see how the next couple of seasons play out.

 

 

I like your historic recap of tennis as a whole. I too have been an avid fan all my life, and even was a hell of a player and was offered a scholarship to play at college.

For me, at his best, Nadal is the greatest of all time. When you consider how much of his career has been spent recovering from all sorts of injuries ( knees, back, wrist, etc. ), you have to assume without them, his grand slam totals would have been more, why Federer's  would have been less due to the head to head.

In today's game it is almost soley baseline, no serve and volley. I would take a healthy, on his game, Nadal over Fed, Djoc Murray etc. The guy has proven mentally he is unbreakable when healthy and on his game. In tennis, the mental aspect is huge. When recovering from injury, it takes a while to get that supreme confidence back to where you are at your best. Nadal has had so much stop and go because of these injuries, you could say he has lost close to 3 years of tennis. I know injuries count and are part of the equation, just like in any sport. But seeing that Nadal has 16 majors and is close to Fed, I think it is fair to bring up the injury debate when considering Greatest.

What do you think of Pistol Pete ? When his game was on, there was no one better in my opinion. Also had a lot of injuries, plus the fact he only made the semi' at the French once in his career. His serve and volley was the best, and I think his game could counter against today's baseliners. His consistency on ground game  would always be the argument against him, however.

 Borg was great, but the fact he never won the U.S. Open, which in my opinion, is the biggest Open title to own, because it is the truest surface which most every player can play on, unlike grass and clay. It is also the year end tourney, where most players have their A games together ( Unlike the Australian, which is the start of the new season, and a lot of players are coming out of a layoff from previous season, so their games might not be peaking as of yet ). I know Borg and others hardly ever played the Australian in the past. The schedule was different back then, and the tourney conflicted with Christmas holiday's, so nobody wanted to travel down under.

Conners was another great one. He hardly ever played the French due to the Team Tennis ban, and he didn't play much Aussie either. He won 5 U.S. Opens, and won 3 of them on 3 different surfaces, grass, clay, and hardcourt.

McEnroe, for me, was the greatest waste of potential. Never liked to practice, so he opted to play doubles instead with his party buddy Peter Flemming. When he did choose to put the hours of practice in, like in 84 where he had one of the great years of all time. He literally gave away his one chance at winning the French to Lendl that year in the finals, choosing to blow up and argue with the chair umpire and lose his composure entirely, this after convincingly winning the first 2 sets. Like I said, a major waste of talent. Then came Tatum O'neal the next year, and his game was essentially over at age 27.

Today, I think tennis is starting to  go through what boxing has been going through for the last 15 years. No up and comings. That was always the beauty of tennis, that the next wave of up and coming  tennis players was always better than the previous. It has been essentially the same 4 guys at the top, give or take, for the last 10 years. Where is the next wave of tennis greats ? In the U.S., once the leader in the sport, it is now hardly anyone who is in the top 30- 50. We need great players and great rivalries to keep the sport going in my opinion

[954gator]

@ThunderRam

Fed should have changed to a midplus racquet earlier IMO.   Whether he was still using a Prostaff 85 or indeed using a 90 as advertised, it was just too demanding to win at the elite level with such an unforgiving racquet, but Fed was stubborn.    

Nadal is definitely the king of clay, but lately Fed has gotten the best of Nadal in their recent matches.  Also Djokovich has definitely struggled as of late whether it be with injuries or the fact he too is now adjusting with new racquets and string patterns.  

These next two years will be very interesting for sure.  I just think Fed's strengths are easier to maintain at an older age than Rafa's.   

[nptb17]

5 hours ago, CaliNorth said:

I like your historic recap of tennis as a whole. I too have been an avid fan all my life, and even was a hell of a player and was offered a scholarship to play at college.

For me, at his best, Nadal is the greatest of all time. When you consider how much of his career has been spent recovering from all sorts of injuries ( knees, back, wrist, etc. ), you have to assume without them, his grand slam totals would have been more, why Federer's  would have been less due to the head to head.

In today's game it is almost soley baseline, no serve and volley. I would take a healthy, on his game, Nadal over Fed, Djoc Murray etc. The guy has proven mentally he is unbreakable when healthy and on his game. In tennis, the mental aspect is huge. When recovering from injury, it takes a while to get that supreme confidence back to where you are at your best. Nadal has had so much stop and go because of these injuries, you could say he has lost close to 3 years of tennis. I know injuries count and are part of the equation, just like in any sport. But seeing that Nadal has 16 majors and is close to Fed, I think it is fair to bring up the injury debate when considering Greatest.

What do you think of Pistol Pete ? When his game was on, there was no one better in my opinion. Also had a lot of injuries, plus the fact he only made the semi' at the French once in his career. His serve and volley was the best, and I think his game could counter against today's baseliners. His consistency on ground game  would always be the argument against him, however.

 Borg was great, but the fact he never won the U.S. Open, which in my opinion, is the biggest Open title to own, because it is the truest surface which most every player can play on, unlike grass and clay. It is also the year end tourney, where most players have their A games together ( Unlike the Australian, which is the start of the new season, and a lot of players are coming out of a layoff from previous season, so their games might not be peaking as of yet ). I know Borg and others hardly ever played the Australian in the past. The schedule was different back then, and the tourney conflicted with Christmas holiday's, so nobody wanted to travel down under.

Conners was another great one. He hardly ever played the French due to the Team Tennis ban, and he didn't play much Aussie either. He won 5 U.S. Opens, and won 3 of them on 3 different surfaces, grass, clay, and hardcourt.

McEnroe, for me, was the greatest waste of potential. Never liked to practice, so he opted to play doubles instead with his party buddy Peter Flemming. When he did choose to put the hours of practice in, like in 84 where he had one of the great years of all time. He literally gave away his one chance at winning the French to Lendl that year in the finals, choosing to blow up and argue with the chair umpire and lose his composure entirely, this after convincingly winning the first 2 sets. Like I said, a major waste of talent. Then came Tatum O'neal the next year, and his game was essentially over at age 27.

Today, I think tennis is starting to  go through what boxing has been going through for the last 15 years. No up and comings. That was always the beauty of tennis, that the next wave of up and coming  tennis players was always better than the previous. It has been essentially the same 4 guys at the top, give or take, for the last 10 years. Where is the next wave of tennis greats ? In the U.S., once the leader in the sport, it is now hardly anyone who is in the top 30- 50. We need great players and great rivalries to keep the sport going in my opinion

DJokovic is better than Nadal.  Before their last match Djokovic had won like 5 or 6 in a row.  He hits threw Nadal and bombs him with his serve.

[maxchoboian]

5 hours ago, CaliNorth said:

I would take a healthy, on his game, Nadal over Fed, Djoc Murray etc. The guy has proven mentally he is unbreakable when healthy and on his game. In tennis, the mental aspect is huge.

I agree that the mental part of tennis is unlike many other sports. Every one of these great champions are mentally tough. I'm not sure Nadal is mentally tougher than Federer, who again in the Aussie Open final had to thwart a complete 4th set momentum change in favor of the much younger Cilic, who was moving and striking the ball in that set at a much higher level than Federer. Federer, at his age, fought through, turned the tide, and broke Cilic's will in the 5th set. Exactly what great champions do when things aren't going their way.

Federer, Borg, Sampras, Nadal, Laver, Djokovic, Lendl, Rosewall. All mentally tough as nails.

[954gator]

Now if Nadal had a killer service game....

[golfaddict1]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/tennis/5448130/rod-laver-says-roger-federer-is-greatest-of-all-time-after/

The Rocket has spoken..:

Slam record in finals for some popular names...

Fed 20-10

Nadal 16-7

Sampras 14-4 

Djok 12-9 

Borg 11-5

Jimbo  8-7 

Agassi  8-7 

Mac   7-4 

Nicklaus had 18 majors, but also had 19 2nd place finishes in majors in Golf.  Fed’s consistency thru the years is also remarkable.  

[nptb17]

Michael Chang was my favorite tennis playing growing up.

[golfaddict1]

8 minutes ago, nptb17 said:

Michael Chang was my favorite tennis playing growing up.

What a fierce competitor he was.   I go further back as Connors was my fav back in the day.  

[CaliNorth]

4 hours ago, nptb17 said:

DJokovic is better than Nadal.  Before their last match Djokovic had won like 5 or 6 in a row.  He hits threw Nadal and bombs him with his serve.

Like I pointed out,  Nadal up until last season, was not Nadal.  In 2013 he beat Djoc at U.S. Open, then won the French in 2014 and hurt his back right before the U.S. Open, where he was playing great and was the prohibitive favorite. Since that point, he has struggled with various injuries and trying to get back his form and confidence. He wasn't, and still is not, the same dominant Rafa. In fact, I had claimed amongst my friends that he was finished, and that his body would never allow him to win a major again because the 5 sets were too demanding  and his confidence was shot. He amazed me last season. Djoc is going through something similar now with his elbow. He is not the same player, and his confidence is not their also. It is extremely hard to regain the number 1 status, especially mentally where it is all important at that level.

 You can see a similar thing when you look at golf and see how injuries, loss of confidence etc. has robbed arguably the greatest golfer of all time, Tiger Woods. He is a shell of what he once was. Beating him now is not the same as beating him before the injuries. This is where some of these head to head statistics can get skewed, in my opinion. Because Djoc got the upper hand the 3 previous seasons over Rafa, is not the same as it was before 2014. Just sayin.

 

[maxchoboian]

1 hour ago, golfaddict1 said:

I go further back as Connors was my fav back in the day.  

Borg got the chicks.

[World Citizen]

40 minutes ago, maxchoboian said:

Borg got the chicks.

Ding Ding.  We have a winner

 BORG is goat and you will be assimilated.  You will become part of the BORG.  Resistance is futile. 

😄