How can you not at least consider Nadal for top two when has more or less dominated the H2H with Federer? Add to that the 2nd most GS Titles (tied with Sampras) and favorable H2H record against Djokovic? Nadal has looked bad all year and TBH I'm not sure he'll ever be the same again, but I wouldn't count him out just yet....or he could just retire out of the blue. I think you can make arguments for Federer, Nadal, and Sampras right now. Djokovic is not quite there yet. As far as Nole winning 15+ GS, it's very possible. Murray will never challenge him consistently, and his only "krypronite" is Wawrinka who is wildly (though maybe not as much) inconsistent. Right now there are very few up and comers. I like Kyrgios and Coric but others have fizzled (Dimitrov) and others just aren't good enough (Raonic).
Nadal has the overall head to head, but Djokovic has been dominating that matchup since mid-2009, when both of them were in their early 20's. If he were to stop now, Djokovic would be behind Nadal, but using the eyeball test he still has quite a few left in him, and his success has been much more diverse than Nadal's. Right now Djokovic is the favorite to win every tournament, including clay.
Never really got to watch Agassi or Sampras play. I started watching after they had retired. But in the current era, the best are in this order: 1. Federer 2. Nadal 3. Djokovic It was always a rock-paper-scissors with those three until recently. Federer > Djokovic, Nadal > Federer, Djokovic > Nadal all due to playstyles. Nadal's body is breaking down. Federer has been slowly declining the past 4 years yet surprisingly reaches finals consistently. Djokovic wasted his early career with immaturity but has been dominant in the past 3 years. By the end of their careers, Djokovic will surpass Nadal. I think Federer stays on stop due to the longevity of his dominance. I'll never understand the Murray support. He has the most boring play of any contender. He's good enough to beat those who beat themselves, but he's always second-tier to anyone with low unforced errors and an offensive stroke.
Fair assessment especially if Djokovic continues and no one is really stopping him (except Wawrinka). On the subject of Murray, he was deserving to win Wimbledon as well as the US Open. That being said, I really don't see their being a big four anymore. Djokovic has been on another level this year and Murray rarely competes. I'd take Wawrinka over Murray. When Stan is ON, he is damn near unbeatable (see 2015 FO). Sadly he lacks the consistency. So back on the subject, I'll still keep my original rankings Federer/Nadal Sampras Djokovic Agassi In a few years, Djokovic could shift those rankings, if not completely over take them with so little competition.
The Fed-Nadal H2H is really not a fair way to judge that rivalry. The fact that many of Fed's losses to Nadal were deep into clay tournaments (Rafa's specialty), whereas in many other tournaments during Fed's peak years Nadal was getting knocked out in earlier rounds and Fed didn't have the chance to play him. The fact that age and court surface are both major variables make tennis H2H irrelevant in most cases. Federer is is 33 and still going deep in almost every major, still winning tournaments and lives near the top of the rankings. That pretty much says it all. And 17 GS. = GOAT.
If you're talking about wood racquets I completely agree, but by the mid 80's graphite was taking over, and since then athleticism is the biggest difference in tennis. There are some stiff, powerful frames out there, but that's not what the top pros are playing with. For instance Murray, Djokovic, Monfils, and Fed (until last year) all use classic racquet technology from the early 90's despite the paint jobs making them look like the newest thing out there. String technology, however, has changed the game, and goes hand in hand physical, explosive baseline tennis. Copolys allow you to take big cuts with lots of racquet head speed, because they are so conducive to generating topspin.
Nadal still has a winning record against fed even without clay courts it's just a bad matchup for Federer in terms of playstyles, it really doesn't say much about greatness factor. Nadal was beating Federer on all courts when he peaked for those 2 years. I agree with you though, Fed is still ahead of him despite the H2H because you can't just be great for such a short period and then be constantly injured or only perform on clay.
Nadal took Federer down at Wimbledon. Federer never took Nadal down at the French. You have to give him credit for that. The reason Federer is better, is that he has stayed healthier, in no small part due to the difference in playing styles. Federer's game is so smooth, and seems to glide on the court while everyone else is running around. Only real knock against Fed is most of his majors came during the gap between Sampras/Agassi and prime Nadal/Djok. He hasn't beaten Nadal or Djok in a Slam final since 2007.
Nadal has won a Grand Slam in 10 consecutive years, though likely broken this year. And it isn't just Clay, he has reached a non-French Final for 9 consecutive years.
reaching the final should really not be the goal for someone that wants GOAT contention his lack of success in actual wins outside of clay came during the 2009-2012 run where he was the clear No.1 in the world.
lol Marat was the hottest player ever probably in all sports. What a waste! :grin: Joking aside another exciting player was Santoro. What a talent! I was a huge fan. Not very well known with casuals. He was like the Boris Diaw of tennis in a way.
Jumping in late here, but I think Federer holds the crown. I just don't think it can be stated enough how dominant he was at his peak. Just dropping a set was worldwide news. Players felt like they had no chance as soon as they stepped onto the court. The fact that he's #2 right now without any of the speed, precision and power he once had is remarkable. Of course, you can make the case for Nadal, he has the inferior slam count but the lopsided H2H in his favour, but my argument there echoes what others have said: Federer was doing his part by making it deep into clay tournaments whereas Rafa was still finding his overall game and not getting into the hard court slam finals until many years later. We never got to see prime Federer vs prime Rafa in a hardcourt slam final. At least not to my recollection (I consider Fed's prime to be 04-06). I think there is still a surface imbalance in the schedule though. Perhaps more grass and indoor tournaments would have levelled the H2H. Federer was absolutely lethal indoors, even later in his career he handled Rafa quite well on those. He owned those end of year indoor tournaments. Stylistically Rafa was a damn thorn though, making Federer hit backhands that were practically flying over his head because of all that spin. Not to mention Rafa's relentless defense, making Federer play games with multiple shots that would have put other players away. I think there was a season in which Federer only lost four games...all year....all to Rafa (I think all on Clay too). I bought tickets to the Oz Open finals in 2008, hoping for a Federer-Nadal match. It wasn't to be. Tsonga absolutely demolished Nadal in the final, and Novak shocked the world and took out Federer. Novak has a pretty clear path right now. None of these younger players look ready to take him down, some of the more seasoned guys are capable (looking at Stan, Murray, Federer) but they need the match of their life. Djoker is a brick wall out there and as Mitch Hedberg once said, those things are relentless. I grew up being a Sampras fan and I'm familiar with his game enough to know that I think he could give Federer, Rafa and Novak a run. Why wouldn't he? His serve was massive, net coverage imposing and groundstrokes were dominant. He could cover more court than you think. Have to mention my respect for Safin. When he was right, he could play. His match against Federer at the Aussie Open in 2005 was a classic.
have to wonder how many more slams fed could've won if the aus open hadn't changed from rebound ace. a sticky surface not favoring players who like to slide.
Fed and nadal have effectively needed each other's numbers. It's as if Jordan and lebron played during each others primes.
I apologize that I did not read the whole thread. One has to realize that it's difficult to compare achievements now to the era that Sampras played in. They sped up the clay courts at the French and slowed down the courts at Wimbledon enough that there's little difference between all of the surfaces. That's why you see the same players making it to the top of all the Grand Slams regardless of the surface now. In Sampras' day, you had genuine differences in the surfaces. On clay, you had specialists like Bruguera and Muster who feasted on more fast court players. These guys didn't even play Wimbledon. Don't believe there was a difference? Freakin' Ivan Lendl skipped the French Open a couple of times, so he could learn the serve-and-volley game and compete at Wimbledon. Boris Becker and Stefan Edberg met in the Wimbledon finals 3 straight years from 1988-1990. They dominated grass. In 1990, they were #1 and #2 in the world, yet both lost in the FIRST ROUND of the French Open. Boris Becker was one of the best players of his era, and he NEVER won a clay court tournament. There was a genuine distinction between the surfaces then, and there isn't now. That is why Agassi was so impressive. Not in the Top 15 now? Man, you don't know sh... The extinction of the serve-and-volley style of play is really the reason I can't get back into watching tennis now. Everybody plays the same d*mn style now!!!! Boring. I do not believe the return game has improve so much? Where do you all get that?? It's the stupid racket technology that makes the returns come back so fast & has messed up the serve-and-volley game. They really need to fix this stupid racket technology issue. I still play with my rackets from 25 years and am competitive.
I can't speak as much to the great players of today, but my impression is they are overrated. I remember way back in 2006 or something, I hadn't watched tennis in a long time. I heard that this guy called Federer was going for 4 straight Grand Slams in the French final. He was facing a guy named Nadal, who was the returning champion. Sounded like an epic match, and I was all hyped! So unimpressed. Federer had like 60+ unforced errors. Such low quality play. Yes, it's one match, but this was one of the biggest matches of his life - and he played like sh.... Don't see him as the greatest of all time.
Don't know if this was addressed, but this is completely false. While Sampras was not a natural serve-and-volleyer like Edberg or McEnroe and was a little hesitant to do it early in his career, he was convinced to come in after his first and second serves on grass and hard courts his whole stretch of domination as #1 in the world. One consistent criticism of Sampras was that he did not have the confidence to follow his second serve into net on clay courts. Like Becker, Sampras had pretty good groundstrokes for a serve-and-volleyer and would try his luck at the baseline on clay courts, but this was not going to work against the clay court specialists of the era. So many times I would watch in dismay as macho Becker would get suckered into baseline battles. I watched (and played) a TON of tennis in the early 90's, and by far my favorite times watching was rooting for serve-and-volleyers (esp. my favorite Boris Becker) try to defy the odds and win the French. Never saw one get closer than the semis. Edberg reached the Finals of the French against Chang, but that was right before I got into it. Stich reached the Finals of the French, but that was just after I quit watching. I'm not even sure if Stich was serving and volleying, b/c he did have real good groundstrokes. Again, you can't underrate Agassi. He was a genuine threat on all four surfaces when there was a big difference in the surfaces. I remember being totally crushed when that punk Agassi (whom I hated as a young player) actually beat my idol Boris Becker on Wimbledon's Center Court (that Becker had once claimed was his back yard since he had had so much success there) in five sets in the quarterfinals the year Agassi won his first Grand Slam (I believe it was 1992). I was so shocked. It would be like the Rockets losing to the Kings or some cr*ppy team in the first round of the playoffs or something. Devastating. Ah, such memories............I'm so old..........
