GOAT Men's Tennis player

[veilside23]

who do you think it is ?

is it rafa because he dominated roland garros? can any body ever shatter that record?

the previous consensus goes to Federer

Sampra's the king of ace?

Borg ...
Mcenroe
Novak ?
rod laver?
thoughts...

[ForeverHeat]

Its currently Federer, but it might be Nadal when he retires. I think Federer and Nadal will end up being remembered like Magic and Bird. You can go either way.
Novak has a chance but I dont think he will win as many titles as those two.

[veilside23]

Its currently Federer, but it might be Nadal when he retires. I think Federer and Nadal will end up being remembered like Magic and Bird. You can go either way.
Novak has a chance but I dont think he will win as many titles as those two.


you maybe right but he isn't that far ... djoker also has a feat himself

If fed is the king of Wimbledon
and rafa is the king of clay
then novak is the king of Australian open?

[kurple]

My personal favorites are Borg and Federer

[BigBoss]

Federer no doubt. 17>13

[Akrazotile]

Agassi because he did coke and had a mullet.

[ForeverHeat]

you maybe right but he isn't that far ... djoker also has a feat himself

If fed is the king of Wimbledon
and rafa is the king of clay
then novak is the king of Australian open?

Thats true. I also didnt factor in Nadal's injury problems. If he was injury free who knows how many grand slams he could have ended up with.

One thing is for sure in my opinion, and that is that the GOAT tennis player will be someone from this Fed-Nad-Djo generation. Tennis is at is very best right now and long may it continue.

[ArbitraryWater]

Rafa, Hands down...

Federer? http://underneathestarz.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/laugh.gif

[Rubio2Gasol]

What you mean?

Fundamentals? -Djokovic
Pure unstopability? - Federer
Mentality and Determination - Nadal

Iceborg is my favorite all time, he could have been the greatest if he wanted.

[dude77]

it's kind of weird to call federer goat with nadal around considering how nadal has owned him .. 4 is still a big gap though .. nadal needs to win more slams

[ArbitraryWater]

What you mean?

Fundamentals? -Djokovic
Pure unstopability? - Federer
Mentality and Determination - Nadal

Iceborg is my favorite all time, he could have been the greatest if he wanted.

Federer so unstoppable he has no chance against Rafa :bowdown:


it's kind of weird to call federer goat with nadal around considering how nadal has owned him .. 4 is still a big gap though .. nadal needs to win more slams

still bugs the **** out of me that he didnt win 2012&2014 australian open... so winnable :banghead: :cry: :cry: :cry:

[9erempiree]

You kids obviously never watched this guy.....the GOAT

http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2014/04/03/1226873/894498-d6ebb42e-ba1a-11e3-a264-cacd3e0700b0.jpg

He would wipe the floor on Nadal and Roger. He was the original of the power serve you see today. He had a beautiful forehand and especially the backhand that you don't see today....factor in what I mentioned, he was a fantastic serve and volley player that is now extinct in today's game.

[9erempiree]

Also, Sampras' era had so many great players and yes, I can bring that up since this is an individual sport.:banana:

[ForeverHeat]

Didnt a young Federer trash Sampras at Wimbledon?

[9erempiree]

No, Federer beat Pete in 01 Wimbledon and barely, it was very close every set. Pete was already done but he made it to a couple of Finals that year though.

[veilside23]

I watched Sampras going up sure he is the king of ace... however I don't know why he didn't even snatch 1 French open title ? that's the only ? on his career

[9erempiree]

I watched Sampras going up sure he is the king of ace... however I don't know why he didn't even snatch 1 French open title ? that's the only ? on his career

Just because a guy can't play on clay court doesn't mean he is not the greatest. BTW...tennis is not suppose to be played on that filthy shit.

[Patrick Chewing]

At their peak, Sampras wins hands down. The man was unstoppable.

[9erempiree]

Roger and Nadal are great with their power shot but Sampras can cut you apart with his stroke. Always getting angles, using his deception, volley skills and power.

[Andrei89]

Roger and Nadal are great with their power shot but Sampras can cut you apart with his stroke. Always getting angles, using his deception, volley skills and power.


Stfu you never watched a tennis game in your life

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Stfu boy

[9erempiree]

Stfu you never watched a tennis game in your life

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Stfu boy

I use to watch Ivan Lendl homie, give your daddy some respect.

[Milbuck]

It's Federer right now based on accomplishments, but there is a serious argument to be made for Nadal if he wins 2 more slams. 15 slams, with a 70% winning percentage against Federer is pretty damn impressive. I say he needs 2 more non-Roland Garros slam trophies to cement himself as the GOAT. 1 more Wimbledon and 1 more AO would do it imo.

He'd have:

27+ Masters 1000 trophies
15+ grand slams
200+ weeks at #1
Olympic Gold Medal in Singles
4 Davis Cups
Double Career Grand Slam (all 4 grand slams twice)

And he would've thoroughly owned his biggest rival for his whole career, with a 23-10 record against him (70% winning). It is most likely going to keep improving in his favor, considering Federer in all likelihood may never beat Nadal again.


At their peak, Sampras wins hands down. The man was unstoppable.
Nope. If they transported all the current players to Pete's era with the faster courts, probably. But Sampras would get wrecked against prime Nadal and Federer on modern courts/conditions. Rafa would just bomb 4500 rpm forehands into Sampras's backhand. He's owned Federer his whole career doing that, Pete would be no exception.

[Done_And_Done]

It's Federer right now based on accomplishments, but there is a serious argument to be made for Nadal if he wins 2 more slams. 15 slams, with a 70% winning percentage against Federer is pretty damn impressive. I say he needs 2 more non-Roland Garros slam trophies to cement himself as the GOAT. 1 more Wimbledon and 1 more AO would do it imo.

He'd have:

27+ Masters 1000 trophies
15+ grand slams
200+ weeks at #1
Olympic Gold Medal in Singles
4 Davis Cups
Double Career Grand Slam (all 4 grand slams twice)

And he would've thoroughly owned his biggest rival for his whole career, with a 23-10 record against him (70% winning). It is most likely going to keep improving in his favor, considering Federer in all likelihood may never beat Nadal again.


Nope. If they transported all the current players to Pete's era with the faster courts, probably. But Sampras would get wrecked against prime Nadal and Federer on modern courts/conditions. Rafa would just bomb 4500 rpm forehands into Sampras's backhand. He's owned Federer his whole career doing that, Pete would be no exception.

I've always been a Federer guy myself. Prior to when Nadal hopped onto to scene, he was mopping the courts with any and every challenger. But I have to admit, had Rafa not suffered so many injuries early on, this debate may have been settled a whiles ago. He's something else the Spaniard.

And although I was pretty young, I do remember Sampras dominating the competition. I was a bigger fan of Andre though. I liked Michael Chang alot too.

[ArbitraryWater]

Milbuck made a good post :applause:

-Roddick
-Gonzales
-Hewitt
-Baghdatis
-Safin

This is supposed to compare to Rafa winning Titles over Djokovich/Federer/Murray? Lmfao.

[Smoke117]

Sampras. Federer may have dominated, but he played against complete cans when he was dominating. He wouldn't have been as dominate if his prime coincided with Nadals and Djokovics.

[Smoke117]

You kids obviously never watched this guy.....the GOAT

http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2014/04/03/1226873/894498-d6ebb42e-ba1a-11e3-a264-cacd3e0700b0.jpg

He would wipe the floor on Nadal and Roger. He was the original of the power serve you see today. He had a beautiful forehand and especially the backhand that you don't see today....factor in what I mentioned, he was a fantastic serve and volley player that is now extinct in today's game.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I said it myself I think Sampras is the GOAT, but his one handed back hand was one of his weakest shots. Nadal and especially Djokovic have much, much better backhands. Frankly...there are a lot of guys who have much better backhands than Sampras. You shouldn't throw out stupid bullshit nonsense.

[DuMa]

Nadal's got a shot to be GOAT in the next 2 years. Fed's still playing though but its like watching his farewell tour go 2-3 years too long. He is just playing for fun but not really a threat to win anything.

[imdaman99]

Right now it's still Fed... but once the slams keep coming just like Milbuck said, NON-COURT slams, if Nadal gets to 15 or 16 you have to do some real consideration. Injury robbed him of his Australian Open this year :facepalm

[Suguru101]

Federer has been dominated by Rafa, and has lost to him also on non-clay courts so that goes out the window.

The injuries have stopped Rafa being considered the greatest already, but he has a good shot.

Who has been the best tennis player ever though? Borg. There is just no other answer.

The dude dominated clay/grass like no other, setting records for Wimbledon and Roland Garros that have only been surpassed by Federer and Rafa individually... but Borg had them simultaneously. The dude won both Wimbledon/Garros for 3 straight years.

Read and learn more here: http://besteversportstalk.blogspot.com/2012/10/fun-with-tennis-numbers.html

Borg is the greatest. Nadal though... he is the greatest of this era and could end up the goat. Federer just doesn't cut it even while having the most titles.

[plowking]

Siriously, I've seen Fed's domination, but Nadal is doing the same and more now.

Dominating one surface isn't the same as dominating all of them.

It's no comparison, especially when a lot of tennis heads don't even think that the clay courts should be a real major.

I think Federer and Rod Laver have the best cases for the GOAT. Novak for me though played the highest level of tennis I've ever seen in terms of absolute peak though. He was brilliant that one year. Unstoppable like no other tennis player I've seen.

[RagaZ]

I think Nadal in 2008 was better tbh.

Those 3-4 months when he won French Open(killed Federer in the final), Wimbledon and the Olympics.

[Milbuck]

I think Nadal in 2008 was better tbh.

Those 3-4 months when he won French Open(killed Federer in the final), Wimbledon and the Olympics.
2008 Nadal at Roland Garros might be the most dominant tennis player I've ever seen. That was as close to untouchable as I've ever seen a tennis player, it was like the game was just going in slow motion for him. It was like the 2001 Lakers of tennis runs in a grand slam. He destroyed Federer with a score like 6-1 6-3 6-0 in the final. He lost on average like 5 games a match, which is just absurd for 7 best of 5 set matches.

[Jasi]

I think that in no sport there is as clear cut a GOAT as Federer in tennis.

[Dresta]

lol @ the overrating of Nadal. Federer is easily the superior Tennis player. Nadal destroyed the watchability of Tennis with his stand 10 feet behind the baseline and just wear the other guy down bollocks. Federer was probably the most graceful player ever and has won the most slams, and far more complete a player than Nadal. Nadal has only won 5 slams not on clay. There is no argument.

[RagaZ]

2008 Nadal at Roland Garros might be the most dominant tennis player I've ever seen. That was as close to untouchable as I've ever seen a tennis player, it was like the game was just going in slow motion for him. It was like the 2001 Lakers of tennis runs in a grand slam. He destroyed Federer with a score like 6-1 6-3 6-0 in the final. He lost on average like 5 games a match, which is just absurd for 7 best of 5 set matches.
Then became the first player in 6 years to beat Federer at Wimbledon.

[dude77]

federer has the more classic looking, more aesthetic game .. and more slams .. but nadal has owned him head to head and nadal has beaten the best to win his slams on all surfaces .. federer is lucky nadal got bumped in 09 at roland garros, otherwise he wouldn't even have a career slam with all of his titles .. if nadal wins 2-3 more, how can you rank federer ahead of him ? nope can't do it

[Dresta]

federer has the more classic looking, more aesthetic game .. and more slams .. but nadal has owned him head to head and nadal has beaten the best to win his slams on all surfaces .. federer is lucky nadal got bumped in 09 at roland garros, otherwise he wouldn't even have a career slam with all of his titles .. if nadal wins 2-3 more, how can you rank federer ahead of him ? nope can't do it
Nadal is 5 years younger than Federer, and played loads of games vs Federer on clay - that explains his head-to-head record. It's like grading a 29 year old Lebron the same as a 34 year old Kobe - one of the two has a clear physical advantage over the other. Nadal wasn't really competing in the other slams until Federer was already starting to decline. (you lose your edge in Tennis before most sports for sure)

[9erempiree]

lol @ the overrating of Nadal. Federer is easily the superior Tennis player. Nadal destroyed the watchability of Tennis with his stand 10 feet behind the baseline and just wear the other guy down bollocks. Federer was probably the most graceful player ever and has won the most slams, and far more complete a player than Nadal. Nadal has only won 5 slams not on clay. There is no argument.

Sampras would have killed him with his touch. Drop shot -or- make him pay with volleys.

[9erempiree]

Its pathetic for any American to say those two are better when we have Sampras.

Must be a lot of kids on here who never seen him play.:facepalm

[Sarcastic]

Nope. If they transported all the current players to Pete's era with the faster courts, probably. But Sampras would get wrecked against prime Nadal and Federer on modern courts/conditions. Rafa would just bomb 4500 rpm forehands into Sampras's backhand. He's owned Federer his whole career doing that, Pete would be no exception.


Would depend on the surface/tournament they are playing in. In the French Open, obviously he would. On the US hard courts, Sampras' serve would be too much for Nadal, as that has always been a tough court for him even today. On Aussie hard courts, it would be a push. At Wimbledon grass, Sampras would push his face in. On indoor carpet, it would be hard for Nadal to win a game off Sampras.

[ArbitraryWater]

I think Nadal in 2008 was better tbh.

Those 3-4 months when he won French Open(killed Federer in the final), Wimbledon and the Olympics.

Shit was crazy... Didn't lose a set and dismantled Roger 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 :oldlol:

[ArbitraryWater]

lol @ the overrating of Nadal. Federer is easily the superior Tennis player. Nadal destroyed the watchability of Tennis with his stand 10 feet behind the baseline and just wear the other guy down bollocks. Federer was probably the most graceful player ever and has won the most slams, and far more complete a player than Nadal. Nadal has only won 5 slams not on clay. There is no argument.

Again, this isn't a diving contest... Style, or Aesthetics, don't matter... get it in your head, retard

[Dresta]

Again, this isn't a diving contest... Style, or Aesthetics, don't matter... get it in your head, retard
In what way don't they matter? Style and class are two things that somewhat defined Federer's game, and he still has the most Grand Slam titles in history. Nadal would never have won Wimbledon if they hadn't slowed down the grass courts; Federer's game is more adaptable, more refined, and also more attacking and interesting to watch. Nadal's style of Tennis however has put me off the game, so why wouldn't i hold it against him. Federer is clearly (and it's night and day) the better Tennis player, Nadal is the superior athlete.

[dude77]

Nadal is 5 years younger than Federer, and played loads of games vs Federer on clay - that explains his head-to-head record. It's like grading a 29 year old Lebron the same as a 34 year old Kobe - one of the two has a clear physical advantage over the other. Nadal wasn't really competing in the other slams until Federer was already starting to decline. (you lose your edge in Tennis before most sports for sure)

nadal, federer head to head - 23 -10 nadal

clay 13-2 - nadal

hard court - 9-6 nadal

grass - 2-1 federer

they've played the same number of matches on clay and hard court so no, it's not skewed because of their clay matches .. he has the edge over federer off clay too except for grass and even there it's a negligible difference .. had they met more times on grass, prime nadal most likely would've ripped off a number of wins and overtaken that head to head as well ..

now to the age argument ..

a 17 yr old nadal was already beating federer on hard court while federer was in his prime ... a just turned 19 yr old nadal was beating federer in a grand slam semifinal while federer was in his prime .. a 20 yr old nadal was beating federer in a grand slam final .. so a prime nadal would be just as good if not better than federer ..

nadal won 6 of his first 7 meetings with federer .. this is while federer was in his prime and nadal was just a kid and not in his prime yet ..

so this talk about age is nonsense .. in fact, it's ironic if you try to bring age into the equation because it actually makes nadal look even more impressive ..

not to mention federer doesn't even have a career slam if nadal doesn't get upset in '09 .. he couldn't even win the french without help .. nadal has never needed anyone to lose to win a slam .. he beat who he had to beat including beating the very best in federer to get his first wimbledon .. he didn't need federer to lose to win it ..

finally .. nadal is 9-2 against federer head to head in majors .. 6-2 head to head in grand slam finals .. .. he's beaten him on grass to win a grand slam .. he's beaten him on hard court to win a slam .. he's beaten him on clay to win a slam .. he's beaten him on all surfaces to win a slam ..

nadal has always had federer's number .. the only reason I'll give federer the edge right now is because of the gap .. 4 is still high .. if nadal gets within 2 or better, I'm done .. it's nadal all the way ..

you can't be considered the absolute best of all time while getting your ass owned by another player like that and that same player is winning a comparable number of his own slams ..

I haven't forgotten about sampras though .. he's right up there with all of them

[Milbuck]

Would depend on the surface/tournament they are playing in. In the French Open, obviously he would. On the US hard courts, Sampras' serve would be too much for Nadal, as that has always been a tough court for him even today. On Aussie hard courts, it would be a push. At Wimbledon grass, Sampras would push his face in. On indoor carpet, it would be hard for Nadal to win a game off Sampras.
That goes both ways. If we're playing in the 90s, most likely. But Sampras's style just would not dominate today the way it did back then. Every surface has been slowed down. There's a reason S&V is dying, the game is just transitioning into aggressive baselining. It may suck to say, but it's more athletic than finesse based these days. Nadal is quicker, faster, more explosive, stronger, has more stamina, he's just physically overwhelming. He's got a terrific return of serve, the GOAT defense and passing shot against serve and volleying, and he's got the single most devastating weapon to a 1 handed backhand...his monster forehand. Federer himself is probably the most complete player ever, but it just doesn't matter against Nadal. Rafa is just an absolute master at picking out his opponent's weakness and punishing it relentlessly. There's just very little Sampras can do when he's getting head-level backhands, when Nadal is destroying every ball to his backhand at 4500 rpm. Sampras would be on the level of Federer/Nadal/Djokovic, but he would have major problems with Nadal in this era with the way surfaces and conditions are set.

In what way don't they matter? Style and class are two things that somewhat defined Federer's game, and he still has the most Grand Slam titles in history. Nadal would never have won Wimbledon if they hadn't slowed down the grass courts; Federer's game is more adaptable, more refined, and also more attacking and interesting to watch. Nadal's style of Tennis however has put me off the game, so why wouldn't i hold it against him. Federer is clearly (and it's night and day) the better Tennis player, Nadal is the superior athlete.
This is seriously a load of crap. How are you suddenly the authority on whose game is aesthetically pleasing and not? Nadal's as complete a player as there's been. Just because you may not watch enough of his matches to realize it, doesn't mean it's not true. He's been considering by many to be the best volleyer in the game, even with Federer around. McEnroe, arguably the GOAT net player, has called Nadal a better net player than Federer. Nadal's got incredible touch and finesse. His style doesn't call for it all the time, but to suggest that he's this brute force machine with a limited skill set is just blatant ignorance. He's got a vicious lefty spin serve, he's a great returner, great feel for the game, terrific net player like I've already mentioned, he's one of the most physically dominant players ever, and his mental strength and toughness is just off the charts.

And we can talk all we want about the courts slowing down and how that may have helped Nadal..but why no mention of Federer's absolutely piss-poor competition during his peak? The dude was facing the likes of Ferrero, Roddick, Gonzalez, Nalbandian, Hewitt, etc during his best years. His toughest competition was still teenage Nadal :oldlol:
Toss peak Djokovic from 2011-2013 into Federer's peak from 2005-2007 and he's shitting on the competition as well. Same goes for peak Nadal. You honestly think Federer would still have 17 slams if he was competing age for age with Nadal and Djokovic for his whole career instead of Lleyton Hewitt and Andy "3-21 record against Federer" Roddick?

As far as "adaptable" and "refined" goes, how about this - in 2013, after coming back from an injury hiatus, Nadal went 37-3 in hard court matches, and had 27 straight wins on hard courts before slumping towards the end of the season.

Also, he's the most mentally tough player I've ever seen in the sport, even beyond Borg. Federer is arguably the biggest ***** as far as tennis all-time greats go. The dude is one of the most fragile, easily demoralized GOAT-caliber player I've seen in any sport. For the past 4-5 years now he pretty much looks defeated before he even steps on court with Nadal. You can see it in his eyes, he has just about zero faith in his chances.

[gigantes]

in terms of accomplishments-- rod laver, and it's not even close. he crushes all the others in majors, total tourney wins and other stats... sampras, federer, nadal, borg... just everyone.


read'em and weep, fellas...
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8951234&postcount=123

[gigantes]

in terms of who's the GOAT if a time machine was available... i'd say that generally changes year to year with whoever's the clear-cut #1 for the year.

clearest example of that is probably djoker from two years ago and nadal from a year or two before that, etc.

[ArbitraryWater]

The "GOAT" is fishing..

[Dresta]

This is seriously a load of crap. How are you suddenly the authority on whose game is aesthetically pleasing and not? Nadal's as complete a player as there's been. Just because you may not watch enough of his matches to realize it, doesn't mean it's not true. He's been considering by many to be the best volleyer in the game, even with Federer around. McEnroe, arguably the GOAT net player, has called Nadal a better net player than Federer. Nadal's got incredible touch and finesse. His style doesn't call for it all the time, but to suggest that he's this brute force machine with a limited skill set is just blatant ignorance. He's got a vicious lefty spin serve, he's a great returner, great feel for the game, terrific net player like I've already mentioned, he's one of the most physically dominant players ever, and his mental strength and toughness is just off the charts.

And we can talk all we want about the courts slowing down and how that may have helped Nadal..but why no mention of Federer's absolutely piss-poor competition during his peak? The dude was facing the likes of Ferrero, Roddick, Gonzalez, Nalbandian, Hewitt, etc during his best years. His toughest competition was still teenage Nadal :oldlol:

Toss peak Djokovic from 2011-2013 into Federer's peak from 2005-2007 and he's shitting on the competition as well. Same goes for peak Nadal. You honestly think Federer would still have 17 slams if he was competing age for age with Nadal and Djokovic for his whole career instead of Lleyton Hewitt and Andy "3-21 record against Federer" Roddick?

As far as "adaptable" and "refined" goes, how about this - in 2013, after coming back from an injury hiatus, Nadal went 37-3 in hard court matches, and had 27 straight wins on hard courts before slumping towards the end of the season.

Also, he's the most mentally tough player I've ever seen in the sport, even beyond Borg. Federer is arguably the biggest ***** as far as tennis all-time greats go. The dude is one of the most fragile, easily demoralized GOAT-caliber player I've seen in any sport. For the past 4-5 years now he pretty much looks defeated before he even steps on court with Nadal. You can see it in his eyes, he has just about zero faith in his chances.
:rolleyes:

You've evidently not played much tennis, have you?

[iamgine]

In what way don't they matter? Style and class are two things that somewhat defined Federer's game, and he still has the most Grand Slam titles in history. Nadal would never have won Wimbledon if they hadn't slowed down the grass courts; Federer's game is more adaptable, more refined, and also more attacking and interesting to watch. Nadal's style of Tennis however has put me off the game, so why wouldn't i hold it against him. Federer is clearly (and it's night and day) the better Tennis player, Nadal is the superior athlete.
This is like saying Nash was a better basketball player than Shaq. While it's true Nash has a much much higher basketball skills and IQ than Shaq, it doesn't make him the better basketball player.

[gigantes]

:no:

laver, not federer, has the most singles majors in men's history-- 19.

[robert de niro]

:rolleyes:

You've evidently not played much tennis, have you?
and this is relevant because? :hammerhead:

[RagaZ]

Federer 22-18 in 5 set matches.