Who is the greatest male player of all time?

Different eras have required different skills, so its very hard to get this list down to 10 nominees but I thought I would try.

Who do you think has the moniker of the greatest ever tennis player? It may not be the one who has won the most but I would be interested in hearing your reasonings.

I voted for Connors as he was my favourite personality and had that never give up mentality.

The one entry I would have liked to have put up but only had room for 10 was Andre Aggassi.

You could easily swap Perry for Agassi.

Federer for me, he has been pure quality for a long period of time and his consistency in Slams says it all for me.

I disagree, Sampras and Connors had more competition, and since the emergence of Nadal, Federer has struggled to maintain his consistency in slams!

What competition did Sampras have on grass? He also never won the French Open, the only clay court Slam.

I know very little of Connors and his era, so would be more than happy to bow to someone with more knowledge on that.

Connors probably wasn't even the best player of his own era, never mind all time, yet IMO he was the most fun to watch.

A real fighter, scrapper and character all rolled into one with possibly the best return of service and counter attack game I've ever seen.

Most of the modern players bore me now - they are too much like automatons. Nadal is possibly the exception to that

If it's purely down to titles then it's a straight fight between Federer and Sampras but neither of them excite the fans to the levels that Borg, McEnroe, Connors or Agassi could.
I've plumped for Borg, he was more an artist on the court.

Hey, great thread.......this place is starting to pick up!

Difficult for me to vote on this as I've only been following tennis for a couple of years but I've voted for Federer.

Solerina

Tough one!

After consideration I'll go for Laver; twice did the Grand Slam (1962 and 1969) and did the Professional Grand Slam in 1967.

For me, it's got to be Laver, he has been the most gifted natural tennis player ever. And played incredible tennis into his 30's, the only other player so far to have got close to Laver's abilities is Federer, but that's just my opinion and how I see it.

I voted for Federer, but Borg and Laver both more than make a case for the title of best ever. I guess if sport evolves, in terms of athleticism, technology etc, then the current top player(s) would likely beat those from previous eras, meaning that Nadal will likely eclipse Federer as best ever within the next few years. Comparing eras is never fair on the respective players or accurate enough, in my opinion. Best to accept that all those players listed were true greats.

welcome to the board VintageStorm
Great to see you have joined, im sure you will enjoy it here

Y I Man wrote:welcome to the board VintageStorm
Great to see you have joined, im sure you will enjoy it here

Cheers mate, I was undecided about here or the 'not606' forum, but someone posted a thread on 606 outlining the pros and cons of the new forums, and a thread regarding 'who's your favourite historical dictator; Hitler or Saddam' on 'not606' made me decide this place might be more my thing!

I went for Mcenroe. He was a great player and is very entertaining to watch

Not a bandwagon jumper but i do think that Federer is the best player of all time. His titels and ability to win on all surfaces does it.

Big shout for Rod Laver though as he was simply brilliant back in the day.

Definetly Lendl. That hat was just plain awesome.

I actually plumped for Nadal. I think when he finishes he will have surpassed Federer in the slam haul. That is my opinion. He by far has the most amazing forehand I have ever seen and his gladiator like competitiveness and desire for the game is gripping to watch. I would've liked to have seen him against McEnroe in his pomp as that would've pitted 2 of the games greatest competitors against each other.

I voted for Rafa, purely because I love his game so much. I was a big fan of Borg and Agassi, and always enjoyed watching Connors, Mac and Becker. I only have childhood memories of Laver, so difficult for me to comment on him.

Rafa is the one player I will stop and watch...really watch, not do the ironing or cook a meal while he's on.

I know there's the arguement for those who have won more slams, or the surfaces they were played on...weak eras...injuries etc, but my vote is for the player who inspires me....and that's Rafa.

I don't think it makes sense to compare across eras given how much the game has changed. But if I had to say someone, it would be Federer.

Of the modern racquet era I would say Roger has got the credentials at this stage it is too hard to forecast future achievements of Nadal, but he has a chance to move all the way up the list to #1.

Of the wooden racquet era i would say the greatest is Laver. No one dominated like the rocket

But frankly I don't think that you can really compare the champions of 80s-present to the champions of the 70s and before. The modern racquet and later the modern strings have changed the game completely. And has made it very difficult to compare wooden racquet champs to modern racquet champs.

Fed has to be the best of all times imo. But the most naturally talented for me is Johnny Mac. The man used doubles as training. He could still have been a top 20 ranked player well into his mid 40s imo.

Azania, Johnny Mac had probably the best hands and feel of any player who has ever played the game. To this day I have never seen anyone even approach his volleying ability. He just liked the high life and wasn't much for cardio or weight training, but in terms of feel and touch nobody could possibly compare. If he had the work ethic of lendl mixed with his own natural ability he probably would have won well into double digits in terms of slams.

From looking at the poll my initial thoughts were that it's difficult to compare wooden racket/gut strings era with the "composite-everything" of today. Also sports science & nutrition has pushed fitness levels to new levels in pretty much all sports today. Even snooker players don't sink 20-pints during a match now

At a push to pick one player though, yes, McEnroe was a supremely talented player. As socal points out also a top ranked doubles player. A pity he took a "break" from tennis when he was only about 25 (?) as he was never the same coming back. Still good, but had lost a bit of sharpness. What a serve though, never seen an action like it and opponents couldn't read where it was going.

However, could also make a case for Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal....

Roger has such a resume at this stage that he is clearly the greatest male player of at least the modern era. But, if Rafa stays healthy and keeps winning slams he could make a great case for supplanting federer. The superior head to head record, the boatloads of master's he has won. I think however that Rafa will have a much tougher time getting close to Fed's 16 slams as that is a huge number and requires not only supreme talent but a relatively injury free career.

Mcenroe was the last great finesse server volleyer we have ever seen. I have always wondered why no one has never tried to imitate that serve action, like you pointed out excited, it had so much spin and deception.

Well, as a left-hander playing county tennis in the early to mid-80's I can reveal at least someone tried to imitate his serve.

If memory serves me right, I pretty much fell over - although the main problem was I don't even think the ball reached the net without bouncing at least 3 times...

socal, Big Mac has said many times that Henman should have turned more to the side when he served to generate more spin and camouflage its direction.

He didn't listen of course.

I wonder if he has said the same thing about Murray ??

Jubba - that jerked a (distant) memory that McEnroe said about Murray's serve a couple of Wimbie's ago - possibly the year he lost out to Roddick in the semis ??

At the start of that Wimbledon Mac said that he would like to see Murray drop the pace of his 1st serve to around the 125mph range and improve accuracy.

I seem to remember Murray finished the tournie with c 126mph 1st average and only lost out to Roddick - on a hot streak - who pushed Fed all the way in the final.

Hmm - away to the internet to find out if any of the above is true...

I think you should exclude active players from the list. You can only judge a player after the career is over.

King Beer wrote:I disagree, Sampras and Connors had more competition, and since the emergence of Nadal, Federer has struggled to maintain his consistency in slams!

What has Federers consistency been since Nadal emerged? I suggest it has been unprecedented in it's excellence in the history of the game. Vast numbers of consecutive finals, ridiculous semi-final streaks, and a huge number of wins.

I don't know what your definition of consistency is, but if Federer fails it then I doubt it's been seen yet.

My view is that I have to sit down and think very carefully about who to choose between Borg and Federer. Borgs RG/Wimbledon doubles (a feat far harder than the one that exists today, and one he did numerous times) could be the tie-breaker. Not winning the US goes against him though.

Bogbrush, I personally don't know if you can even compare Borg to the modern stars of today. He won all of his titles with a wooden racquet and gut strings. For me the modern era of tennis (by then everyone switched to graphite alloy racquets) is 1983, and by then Borg was out of the game. Borg in my mind is the last great champion of the wooden racquet era. And federer is the greatest champion of the modern era. Also we must take into consideration that Borg would most likely have had even more grandslams except back in those days the best guys didn't play australia. Australia was sort of an afterthough until the mid 80s.

socal1976 wrote:Bogbrush, I personally don't know if you can even compare Borg to the modern stars of today. He won all of his titles with a wooden racquet and gut strings. For me the modern era of tennis (by then everyone switched to graphite alloy racquets) is 1983, and by then Borg was out of the game. Borg in my mind is the last great champion of the wooden racquet era. And federer is the greatest champion of the modern era. Also we must take into consideration that Borg would most likely have had even more grandslams except back in those days the best guys didn't play australia. Australia was sort of an afterthough until the mid 80s.

Sure, but I'm going with the view that if Borg emerged now he'd be a great. It's far easier now to take a clay game to Wimbledon and win; that he did it so many times (remember back then all the other clay specialists were routinely falling in the early rounds to anyone tall with a big serve) just tells me the guy could play on anything, with anything.

Oh, I do make a special mention for John McEnroe, who was the greatest "straddler" of those eras, winning Wimbledon with both. Frankly, I think John could have won Wimbledon back then playing with a frying pan.

I don't necessarily agree, respectfully you have made this argument before that the surfaces are slower (wimbeldon is I don't know about all the other tournaments) and therefore it makes the achievements of the champions of the past greater. I think the game has gotten stronger more and more globalized, the late 70s was the beginning just the beginning of when money started to really become a big part of the sport. I think the accomplishments of today's players are just as great if not greater than past champions because the increased competition as a result of the influx of money and globalization of the game. In the 1970s all the great players basically (for the most part with some notable exceptions) came from sweden, the us, and australia. Now players are coming from all over the world, the increased money has given an incentive for more talented athletes to dedicate themselves full time to the game.

As to Johny Mac though you are one hundred percent correct simply the best volleyer and most virtuoso serve and volleyer the game has ever seen.

Whatever the standard, today the same game is appropriate for both the French and Wimbledon; when Borg was winning both it wasn't. Hell, the guy beat McEnroe in a final!

when Borg was winning both it wasn't.
------------------------------------

Arguable. The surface was different but the small frame racquets did not emphasised the difference between those surfaces like bigger graphite racquets did.

In short it is the racquets technology that made clay and grass so different and created 2 big different styles (moonballers and Svers) to succeed on both.


The bigger balls used today have made those surfaces similar again.

Federer has to be the best ...by a mile in view.

Then Borg, Sampras, Lendl, McEnroe...something like that....

McEnroe's genius was that he was able to beat Borg with a small frame. That was quite impressive. No one else could...over 5 sets.

When McEnroe adopted the larger frame, everything became so easy for him he was untouchable for a year.....almost winning the FO as well.

But then lost focus a bit and the next generation caught up quickly. It just shows how quickly the tour (the players) evolves and adapts. It's not so much McEnroe drpping after 1984 than the others hitting harder making McEnroe's touch game pretty fragile.

Borg, McEenro...Nadal
Sampras and Federer being amongst the most boring.

You mean David Ferrer boring or 'wins a lot' boring?

happy birthday for yesterday by the way!

Stealth Maestro Agro Love wrote:You mean David Ferrer boring or 'wins a lot' boring?

I mean boring.. when I mean boring I mean Sampras, Lendl Federer BORING
Its not all about slams

Stealth you aren't going to let go of little David Ferrer. Tenez makes some good points again I don't buy the big balls and slow courts theory that he espouses, but I don't feel like getting carpal tunnel arguing with him. But I agree with him about Mac, in 1984 he dominated the game in away that no on had since laver. Then he had some injuries and loss of focus in 1985. He came back in 1986 to wimbeldon and was blown off the court by Kevin Curran who just muscled him off the court. He himself has stated that he was stunned how much harder the players were hitting the ball, he said when he came back he felt like everybody else was playing a different game.

graf_the_greatest wrote:That's exactly the reason why I liked Sampras. He didn't play to the crowd, he didn't need to add all those obvious ticks and whistles. He was simply being the best tennis player he could be.

This is also the same reason why I liked Lendl and Graf, because they were athletic powerful strikers of the ball, consistent and never had to resort to 'being popular'. Proper tennis fans aren't swayed by these tricks, they know and acknowledge good tennis.

Agassi I never liked whilst he had the straggly hair and gaudy clothes, around the time of Wimbledon 1992. But when he began to take his career seriously, got rid of the strange hair and attire and was more professional, I warmed to him.

Top tennis professionals, in my opinion should be just that, Not act as moronic clowns to pull in a few extra viewers who aren't really concerned with tennis and just want to see a 'show'.

Are you suggesting that because I neither liked Sampras or Lendl I am not a proper tennis fan
Stefi Graf "didnt have to resort to being popular" because she was popular .
As far as Agassi is concerned you obviously know little about the "man" behind the hideous clothes and hair. (which incidentally you would have realised was a wig) he behaved the way he did because of the awful father he had... rebellion.. until he managed to get it out of his system. Try reading his book it is very enlightening. He was an incredible tennis player. I would be interested to know what players you class as moronic clowns, John Mac, Connors, ??? Borg ?? Becker ? Nadal ? Name me a few I would like to be enlightened Ive been watching tennis for over 40 years so I have a pretty good idea of who is a good tennis player and who isnt. And I think I can consider myself a "proper tennis fan"

I would agree if the players to whom you are eluding couldn´t play tennis but if they are a good tennis player and they can be popular as well I cant see the problem. I have no idea who among the top players you consider moronic. and neither would I call them so. They might not play my brand of tennis and maybe haven´t the personality that I can identify with.. but none can I think of as being moronic.I think we are fortunate that there are so many really good players, with contrasting styles, on tour. And so many young ones coming through the ranks. Long may it be so

Top tennis professionals, in my opinion should be just that, Not act as moronic clowns to pull in a few extra viewers who aren't really concerned with tennis and just want to see a 'show'.


------------------------------------------------------------

These were your words my friend not mine.
Anyway Ill put it down to a poor choice of vocabulary.
You should read "OPEN" your opinion of Agassi may well change and
you will see why Seffi married him. and why they are so happy

Hobo wrote:happy birthday for yesterday by the way!

Thanks!

Haddie-nuff wrote:

Stealth Maestro Agro Love wrote:You mean David Ferrer boring or 'wins a lot' boring?

I mean boring.. when I mean boring I mean Sampras, Lendl Federer BORING
Its not all about slams

You'd think I appreciate that, being a big James Blake and Nicolas Mahut fan.

socal wrote:Stealth you aren't going to let go of little David Ferrer

OK, i'll drop it. He still makes me yawn though.