OK,Bjorn Borg was 26 when he retired and is generally considered the greatest of all time.Sampras,Laver,Tilden,and JohnnyMac might have some arguments,but Federer is the only guy that might surpass the Stoic Swede. In fact we might have reached the point that if Roger retired today at 25 where he might be on the same level as Borg.Thoughts?
Oh yeah,one more name...Roy Emerson. Most of these guys have incredible volumes of work,but who is the best?
I believe the level of play has improved vastly over the years. Nowadays any top 100 player can beat the top 5 seeds if they are on a good day. Thats why I think Federer's accomplishments already makes him the best ever.
you can't really say who the best is without having them match-up against each other. if i have to pick one i'll go with sampras because when i was big-time into tennis he was my favorite player. when it's all said and done federer looks like he'll be widely considered the greatest but i don't think that spot is his should he retire today.
I don't think you can compare across generations like that. Much like they have a 50 greatest list in the NBA but it's not ranked. And where's the love for Agassi? If Samprass is there then so should he; Andre at least has a career grand slam to his credit. Samprass owned the grass but never could figure out the clay.
Laver, 2 grand slams. Budge, 1 grand slam. Everyone else, zero grand slams (men's only - since the top men can beat the top women).
It's hard to overlook Sampras's 14 grand slam tourney titles. He's easily better than Borg over the course of a career, given that Sampras had more titles and was at least able to win in 3 of the 4 major tournaments. Borg only won the French and Wimbledon. Nobody could play like that dude Martina Navratilova, though. That guy was awesome.
Borg won 11 slams by age 26. As far as Sampras goes,he's a great champion who performed at a very high level for a long time.The guy had a massive heart too, often literally leaving it all on the court.Pete was Superman on the grass.
Federer makes a compelling case. I would like to see Roddick or Nadal or someone step up to give him a consistant rival. Like Tiger vs the World, Federer vs the World isn't as compelling as Borg vs Connors or McEnroe.
Rod Laver achieved the Grand Slam in 1962, but between 1963-1967, he wasn't allowed to compete in any Grand Slam events. Afterwards, he achieved the Grand Slam again the very next year. If he had been able to play those 5 years before the open era, there's no doubt in my mind he'd have 18-20 Grand Slam titles under his belt. Likewise, Emerson's achievements are sort of "tainted" in the sense that he chose not to go pro while Laver did. 10 of his 12 slams came at a time when Laver (and other professional contemporaries) weren't allowed to play in them. It's also difficult to say who's the best because some players like Ellsworth Vines and John McEnroe were absolutely unbeatable for a period of a few years...then tapered off kind of quickly. Then there are those players who remain at the top of the game for years and years like Pancho Gonzalez. He had weaknesses and was supposedly quite streaky, but the guy was ranked the World's #1 pro tennis player for something like 9 or 10 consecutive years. He was still playing at the highest level past the age of 40.
