Rabada vs Roberts vs Anderson

[capt_Luffy]

I would rather do Top 15:

Bill Tilden
Don Budge
Pancho Gonzalez
Ken Rosewall
Rod Laver
Roy Emerson
Bjorn Borg
John McEnroe
Jimmy Connors
Ivan Lendl
Andre Agassi
Peter Sampras
Roger Federer
Rafael Nadal
Novac Djokovic


Think Alcaraz will be here soon.

 

[Johan]

I love how there's been more woman tennis discussion than discussion regarding Rabada, Roberts or Anderson in this thread. so much cooler than your usual lame PC thread.

 

[DrWolverine]

Laver is the only one imo, although I put him 4th. Borg if he had a longer career then possibly yes, but with the career that he did have, idts.

Björn Borg carries a mystique that remains unmatched. Retiring at just 25 with 11 Grand Slam titles, across starkly different surfaces only deepens the enigma. He will forever be men’s tennis’ greatest “what if.”

Rod Laver’s legacy endures in a way that few others do, not even Sampras or Federer. His aura is rooted in the unprecedented achievement of winning all four Grand Slam titles in a single year, not once but twice.

Pete Sampras’ legacy was built on dominance through numbers: Grand Slam titles, ATP Finals wins, Wimbledon triumphs, weeks ranked No. 1, and year-end No. 1 finishes. Yet, only a few years after his retirement, Roger Federer emerged, following a similar blueprint and surpassed every one of Sampras’ records. In doing so, he reshaped how Sampras was perceived. Similarly, Novak Djokovic went on to surpass Federer’s achievements, and even the most devoted Federer fans have reluctantly acknowledged him as the greater player

 

[capt_Luffy]

Sampras never won a French. At best, I can have him at 6th.

 

[DrWolverine]

Sampras never won a Wimbledon. At best, I can have him at 6th.

French

 

[capt_Luffy]

French

**** me. Thought French but typed Wimbledon smh

 

[Coronis]

I would rather do Top 15:

Bill Tilden
Don Budge
Pancho Gonzalez
Ken Rosewall
Rod Laver
Roy Emerson
Bjorn Borg
John McEnroe
Boris Becker
Ivan Lendl
Andre Agassi
Peter Sampras
Roger Federer
Rafael Nadal
Novac Djokovic


Think Alcaraz will be here soon.

No Connors?

I’m also quite iffy on Emerson being there. He remained amateur during the 60’s, which is where all his slams come from. iirc he was a “shamateur” i.e once Australia had lost the guys like Hoad, Rosewall and Laver to the pros he was paid to remain “amateur”.

 

[DrWolverine]

Even Federer admitted that the homogenization of playing surfaces in the 2000s significantly reduced surface variation, making it easier for players to win across different Grand Slams.

 

[capt_Luffy]

No Connors?

I’m also quite iffy on Emerson being there. He remained amateur during the 60’s, which is where all his slams come from. iirc he was a “shamateur” i.e once Australia had lost the guys like Hoad, Rosewall and Laver to the pros he was paid to remain “amateur”.

Forgot Connors, added.

Yeah, me too. But Emerson did won 8 Majors, including 5 in a row. And has quite good Doubles record in the Open Era as well.

 

[DrWolverine]

If I am not mistaken Andre Agassi was the only men’s tennis player to win a Slam on 3 different surfaces before 2000. I think Wilander won AO on grass, not sure

 

[Coronis]

Björn Borg carries a mystique that remains unmatched. Retiring at just 25 with 11 Grand Slam titles, across starkly different surfaces only deepens the enigma. He will forever be men’s tennis’ greatest “what if.”

Rod Laver’s legacy endures in a way that few others do, not even Sampras or Federer. His aura is rooted in the unprecedented achievement of winning all four Grand Slam titles in a single year, not once but twice.

Pete Sampras’ legacy was built on dominance through numbers: Grand Slam titles, ATP Finals wins, Wimbledon triumphs, weeks ranked No. 1, and year-end No. 1 finishes. Yet, only a few years after his retirement, Roger Federer emerged, following a similar blueprint and surpassed every one of Sampras’ records. In doing so, he reshaped how Sampras was perceived. Similarly, Novak Djokovic went on to surpass Federer’s achievements, and even the most devoted Federer fans have reluctantly acknowledged him as the greater player

Not sure thats true. Also huh, I knew Fed had never won at the Olympics - didn’t know Nadal never won the Tour Finals.

If I am not mistaken Andre Agassi was the only men’s tennis player to win a Slam on 3 different surfaces before 2000. I think Wilander won AO on grass, not sure

Actually, Connors was the first. He never won the French, but the 1977 US open was on clay. (he also won on Grass at Wimbledon and Australia, and hardcourt in the US) Wilander also completed it, as his third Australian open in 1988 and his US open win in 1988 were on hardcourt.

 

[DrWolverine]

Also huh, I knew Fed had never won at the Olympics

I do not think olympic medal in tennis was a big deal till recently. Pete Sampras famously never played the Olympics.

didn’t know Nadal never won the Tour Finals.

I have never seen him as the GOAT. I always viewed him as second best to first Fed and then Novak.

 

[DrWolverine]

As time goes on, people who watched Sampras, Federer and Novak will decrease and they will be reduced to numbers.

Bjorn Borg’s legacy is winning 11 Slams by the time he was 25 and he will remain a mysterious enigma to most tennis fans.

Laver’s legacy currently is 1962 & 1969 Grand Slam and as long as no one wins 4 Slams in one year, he will continue to be regarded highly.

 

[Coronis]

I do not think olympic medal in tennis was a big deal till recently. Pete Sampras famously never played the Olympics.



I have never seen him as the GOAT. I always viewed him as second best to first Fed and then Novak.

I know that, but it was considered a big deal in Fed’s career.

As time goes on, people who watched Sampras, Federer and Novak will decrease and they will be reduced to numbers.

Bjorn Borg’s legacy is winning 11 Slams by the time he was 25 and he will remain a mysterious enigma to most tennis fans.

Laver’s legacy currently is 1962 & 1969 Grand Slam and as long as no one wins 4 Slams in one year, he will continue to be regarded highly.

Eh, Borg got broken mentally by McEnroe. Would’ve been like if Federer retired after Nadal beat him in 08. He had the potential for sure but clearly not the mindset. And funnily enough, after dominating the year after Borg retired, McEnroe’s star fell too.

 

[DrWolverine]

I know that, but it was considered a big deal in Fed’s career.

It became a talking point only in last decade.

As Nadal was coming close to Federer’s Slam tally, his fans used the medal to prove Nadal was better.

Later after Novak surpassed both his rivals in terms of number of Slams, Nadal fans constantly used the gold medal as something Novak never won.

Eh, Borg got broken mentally by McEnroe. Would’ve been like if Federer retired after Nadal beat him in 08. He had the potential for sure but clearly not the mindset. And funnily enough, after dominating the year after Borg retired, McEnroe’s star fell too.

True.

John McEnroe won 7 Slams at age of 25 and never won another Slam.

So we have no idea whether Borg would have won more or would have stopped winning like his rival.

Borg was not mentally strong like Pete or Novak but him retiring early ensures he would always remain an enigma in tennis history.

 

[centurymaker]

I would rather do Top 15:

Bill Tilden
Don Budge
Pancho Gonzalez
Ken Rosewall
Rod Laver
Roy Emerson
Bjorn Borg
John McEnroe
Jimmy Connors
Ivan Lendl
Andre Agassi
Peter Sampras
Roger Federer
Rafael Nadal
Novac Djokovic


Think Alcaraz will be here soon.

There is very little difference between 20, 22 and 24 slams. Nadal and Djokovic played numerous finals and a few were decided by a couple of close points. For eg, If Nadal had got the rub of the green in couple of those points, Nadal and Djokovic would be on 23 each. So it's very hard to separate Nadal, Federer and Djokovic. Their careers weren't exactly an overlap either. So judging just based on number of slams won isn't quite right. Fed had it easy initially. Djokovic had it easy later on. Nadal found it easy at one place. They all have made it count.


Wimbledon 2019, Federer (almost) had that final sealed when he was 38 years old against Djokovic who was 32. This alone sums it up for me. If Djokovic had been the older player in the rivalry or even been of same age, I'd doubt he'd been very successful against Federer. Djokovic's been lucky to have been the youngest one and to have outlasted the two, both because of age and fewer injuries.

All in all, if I had to rank them, I'd go with Federer as No.1, Djokovic as No.2 and Nadal as No.3. (FTR I am a Nadal fan)

 

[DrWolverine]

For me; it’s Novak > Federer > Nadal

 

[DrWolverine]

There is very little difference between 20, 22 and 24 slams.

Come on. A difference of 4 Slams is not little.

Fed had it easy initially. Djokovic had it easy later on. Nadal found it easy at one place. They all have made it count.

IMO, Nadal had it the toughest. He had to play Federer at his peak and then Novak at his peak.

 

[centurymaker]

Look how Djokovic is faring against Sinner and Alcaraz. Age difference does matter.

Djokovic was always 6 years younger than Fed. If Djokovic hadn't had that age advantage he'd been in trouble vs Federer, no doubt in my mind.

 

[DrWolverine]

Nadal & Novak have an age difference of just 11 months.

To an extent, I can agree that Federer and Novak have a significant age difference.