Who Is the Greatest Male Tennis Player of All-Time?

Federer suffers from the same thing Lennox Lewis suffers from
who the h*ll is he playing against?

Pete had Andre
Connors/Bjorg/LLendl/McInroe

Federer just doesn't have any competition

Rocket RIver

 

Greeny (M&M) talked about Federer and this morning. Federer is amazing, but hasn't been around long enough to be called the GOAT. I'm not a huge tennis fan, but the guy is a hell of an athlete.

 

Best - Sampras

Best to watch - Johnny Mac

 

Cross-generation comparison is always going to be controversial, to say the least.

I'm a huge fan of Sampras but I wouldn't call him THE best of all time.

Agreed on Mac. He sure is fun to watch. McEnroe probably couldn't hit a ground stroke to save his life, but he is simply the best volleyer of all time, bar none.

 

Ivan Lendl was amazing. As was Sampras. I haven't followed tennis since Sampras retired.

 

Richie Tenenbaum

 

AWESOME!!!

nothing better than a Wes Anderson flick! (particularly when they're filmed in Houston, though.)

I vote Sampras because he's a Rockets fan!

 

Really? Sampras is definitely a Lakers' fan.

http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2002/01/16/tennis_ed3_~1846676.php

 

Rod Laver ?

 

Sampras is the best at this moment but if Federer continues his dominate play he'll have be considered the best of all time

 

I can only think in terms of "Best player of their respective generation." So...

"Big" Bill Tilden -> Don Budge -> Pancho Gonzalez -> Rod Laver -> Bjorn Borg -> Pete Sampras -> Roger Federer.

If we're talking purely about natural talent and the honing of tennis skills, then Roger Federer is the most complete player on that list...capable of winning on any surface using a wide variety of tactics and shots.

In terms of sheer drive, indomitable will, fiery competitiveness, and the ability to win over any opponent? Pancho Gonzalez by a landslide. In his prime, he was widely considered unbeatable, and he was capable of winning against the world's best players (including a #1-ranked Rod Laver) at the age of 40.

Tangible accolades? Rod Laver won the calendar Grand Slam twice...in 1962 and 1969. Since he became pro in 1963, he couldn't compete in Grand Slam tournaments until the open era began in 1968. He definitely would have more slams than Sampras if he had been allowed to play in those events in his prime.

As far as having a psychological edge over his opponents, Pete Sampras was second to none at cultivating an aura of invincibility. Besides Agassi, literally nobody went into a match with Pete and expected to win.

Bjorn Borg had all four qualities to a certain extent (while he wasn't "fiery" per se, he DID impose his will on matches) However, he was a bit of a prima donna and his devotion to the game was suspect. As a result, he ended up retiring at the age of 26, went nearly bankrupt and put his Wimbledon trophies up for auction recently.

Who's the best? I really have no idea.

 

It came down to him or Milos.

 

Mine was yet another Swede, Stefan Edberg.

 

i'm not a fan of this kind of critique. he has no competition because he is dominant to the nth degree. i can't hold that against him. roddick had been playing extremely well and federer completely dismantled him. federer has zero flaws unless you think he doesn't have enough mph on his serve.

 

yeah, leaving out laver is unconscionable. in terms of overall excellence, no matter the surface, he pretty much stands alone, and won slams on grass and clay (at the time the aussie and us opens were played on grass). borg did the same w/ the french and wimbledon, but couldn't win on hard courts. connors won the US Open on 3 different surfaces, on grass in '72, clay in '74, and hard court in '76, etc. Sampras gets a mention because of the number of titles, and federer is certainly moving up. leaving out old timers such as budge, and just considering the modern era:

1. Laver
2. Sampras
3. Federer
4. Borg
5. Connors

but it's close, particularly the top two, and federer has to be part of the conversation.

 

agree that Rod Laver should have been in the poll.

I have not always followed tennis closely, but what Federer has been doing the last 3-4 years is simply amazing. If he can keep up this pace (winning 2-3 majors a year...and maybe even 4) for 3-4 more years there will be no doubt in my mind about him being the best. If he wins Roland Garros that will be another arguement for Fed over Sampras.

At the French Open Pete reached the semifinals once in 96 and so far Federer has been to the semi's and finals in the last two years. I really expect him to get over the hump this year and win it all.

 

I understand .. but I generally base someone's greatness
on the great people they play
Is Roddick DOMINATING everyone but Federer? I don't think he is
Who would Roddick do against Sampras or Connors or Mac?
I think roddick would be their whipping boy too

It is like KG going back to high school and dominating
then saying he is the best High School player of all time
His game would look even more amazing base on his competition
His passing would look better. . his defense better

Hard to Guage how good someone really is .. when they playing
inferior competition . . because it makes them look so much better

Rocket River
I'm not trying to Dog Federer out

 

i know you're not. i just think it's unfair to even worry about what is a perceived lack of competition. truth is, we don't know how roddick would have faired against older generations. and no, i'm not saying that roddick is all that, just think that federer is. i don't even really like the guy, he's such a technical player and has hardly any emotion or personality going on. give me jimmy conners or johnny mac any day in terms of fun to watch.