How would you rank the greatness of Federer , Djokovic, Nadal, Sampras, Agassi? Please also include other great ones I'm missing .
I would put them like this: 1. Roger Federer -- he has been so great for such a long time 2. Pete Sampras -- literally had no weaknesses 3. Rafa Nadal -- does not have the well rounded game of Roger/Pete 4. Novak Djokovic -- could move up... his legacy is not yet written 5. Andre Agassi -- does not belong in the discussion with the others
Fed Sampras Nadal Borg... I think Djoko will end up in the 3 spot. Needs to win the French After that.. Lendl Conners Agassi
I agree with this list. Andre would have been higher if had the same commitment is youth as he had in his later years. what he did in his early years was based on shear talent alone. He did not take fitness and diet seriously until his later years.
Except Sampras didn't play well on clay and never won the French. Agassi may not be ahead of any of the others, but his success I think allows him to belong in the discussion.
I only know that the 2001 Wimbledon on the men's side was the most epic. and Michael Chang was the Jerry Lin of tennis, without the fan base.
Borg was sort of the cultural Babe Ruth of tennis. Prior to him, nobody really cared. That run of Wimbledon wins and especially the match against McEnroe built a TV following for tennis that wasn't there before. I'm not saying he's the best ever, but I think he probably had the greatest cultural impact on modern tennis.
Sampras was more one-dimensional than any of the other players on this list... and with the improvement (in general) of serve-returning in tennis, I question how effective his serve/volley would be in the modern game today. Agassi's baseline/passing game is actually more on-par with today's players. If he didn't waste half his career being lazy or being involved in bad relationships, he would be much closer in the GS title numbers (as it is, he still ranks in the top 5 of most GS semi-finals appearances ever). Nadal and Agassi have won on every surface... which basically makes their games "well rounded" as you dispute above. Regardless, Djokovic has likely passed both of them and probably only trails Federer at this point. I'd rank them: 1. Fed 2. Novak 3. Sampras 4. Agassi/Nadal 5. McEnroe/Conners/Borg But with Fed, Novak, Nadal all being as good as long... and all still playing at a relatively high level... this was possibly the best era of men's tennis ever. I also doubt any of these guys will be as good at age 34 as Federer was... (Agassi was pretty good later on... but again, he took some years off which helped preserve some wear/tear on the body).
He did end a long drought of American grand slam winners... at 17 no less. Ended up peaking at #2 in the world 8 years after that title. He had a MUCH better career than Lin has had... regardless of heritage.
Fed is the best, it's unbelievable that he's still not only competitive but a legitimate major contender every time out. Unfortunately at this point of his career his game may not be able to hold up long enough in a match to beat someone like Novak who is also a top 3/5 player and in his prime. Roger needs to take the first set maybe even first 2 to have a shot. He's kind of like the Spurs though, you always think he has to be too old to get it done but he continues to stick around. Roger also has a lot more unforced errors then he used to. In his prime Roger could beat anyone's best. I grew up with Sampras dominating so it's hard for me to not put him 2nd but I agree that his game was not as well rounded as even Novak. But I'm not sure I can say he wouldn't be as successful in today's tennis. Agassi of course belongs in any conversation of the best. He just could have been higher if he worked harder earlier. But even when he figured out he needed to get in shape, he still couldn't get past Sampras. 1. Federer 2. Sampras 3. Nadal 4. Djokovic Novak will get to 2 before it's over.
He'd have success, sure... but would he have 7 Wimbledon title success had he played in the same era as these guys today? Hell no. I compare Sampras to Bill Russell's Celtics... he was the best serve/volley player in an era with a lot of serve/volley players, but the game has now evolved beyond this style. His biggest challenger (Agassi) played a style of game to counter-act serve/volley, but as was highlighted above, didn't really commit to the game till later on (when he ultimately out-lasted Sampras in longevity). I also give more credit to Fed/Nadal/Novak because not only are they all great... but they're all great/playing each other at the same time. Its why I think Novak ultimately gets to #2 before its all said and done... just look at who he's facing in every one of these grand slam wins/finals... hell, just look at the fact that he's nearly in the finals or winning every grand slam (or other) tournament he's in for the last 5 years.
Djokovic work ethic is insane. It seems every year he comes back in better shape. He's reminds me of Kobe.... But he has a shot at actually being the GOAT.
I think Fed, Nadal and Djokovic would smoke Sampras in his prime. The game is so much more competitive and athletic in this modern era. Agassi wouldn't even be a top 15 player if he played nowadays.
Hard to rank guys from era's past/ IMO virtually all sports are better now than they were in past eras, and future eras will be better than this one. Compared to each other 1.Federer (GOAT) 2.Djokovic (getting better, f**ked off some of his early years) 3.Nadal 4.Murray Nadal had disproportionate success on clay, which is almost like a gimmick surface compared to all the other ones. Joker and Fed were both awesome on clay, and much better overall on the other surfaces.
Nadal does have 6 non clay majors and a lot of finals on other surfaces. Don't penalize him for being the clay GOAT.
He has 5 non clay majors. If they were to all stop right now, Nadal would have a better resume than Novak. But Nadal appears to be done, and Djokovic is clearly the best player in the world, and will likely win a few more.
