• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

the greatest tennis player?

sash1

sash1

Diamond Member
watching the australian open got me thinking. i think everyone thought Fed was the greatest, but now Nadal is dominating on every surface. so:

Pete Sampras? he still has the record at 14. he dominated the game for a long time. he's american!

Rod Laver? would have the record if he hadn't missed so many majors...

Roger Federer? has 13, will probably set the record sooner or later.

Rafael Nadal? he's only 22 and has 6 majors. winning the Australian now means he's conquered every surface, and isn't just a clay court player.

"Andre Agassi? Agassi is the only man to have achieved a Career Grand Slam by winning on at least three different surfaces. He is also the only player with an Olympic Title also, called a Career Golden Slam"

Bjorn Borg? absolutely dominated the wimbledon and french open

-if you think i should add anyone else, post and i'll add it to the poll
 
I think Nadal has a clear path towards that title but hasn't done enough to actually earn it yet. Federer can't be it because he was outmatched by a contemporary.
 
Since Sampras is on the list I assume you don't mean greatest at this exact moment should they all play. That would go to Nadal probably.

Sampras or Federer. Definitely not Nadal.

Federer has been great for a longer period of time than Nadal and has shown a consistency that Nadal so far lacks. Federer made it to 10 consecutive slam finals and 19 consecutive semi-finals. He was #1 for 237 weeks.

Nadal has the potential to surpass Federer. He is better at a younger age than Federer was. But he still has to show a consistency over several years. So far he's only consistently great on Clay.

 
nadal needs to win more majors before he should be considered. if he keeps winning like he has for the next 5 years, then there is a good argument to be made there but 13 and 14 >>>> 6. A lot of people I have discussed this with think that Nadal plays too hard to have a long career.

IMO if Federer can play at the level he is playing at for a few more years, he's the one. remember, the best sampras ever did at French was a loss in semi's. federer hasnt won it either, but HAS made 3 finals there losing to nadal who may very well be the best CLAY player of all time.

sampras made it to 18 grand slam finals over 12 year period and was weak on clay. (first appearance in final to last appearance)
federer has made it to 18 grand slam finals in 6 years and really has no weakness, just cant match nadal on clay.

i dont know much about laver.
 
Originally posted by: Farang
Federer can't be it because he was outmatched by a contemporary.
Click to expand...

Sampras lost the Australian Open to Agassi at least twice and never even made it to the French finals, which Agassi had won.
 
Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: Farang
Federer can't be it because he was outmatched by a contemporary.
Click to expand...

Sampras lost the Australian Open to Agassi at least twice and never even made it to the French finals, which Agassi had won.
Click to expand...

yeah, Sampras could never win the French. Federer could but Nadal is in his way every year.

i grew up a huge Sampras fan, the rest of my family all loved Agassi - great rivalry, great players, loved 'em both. i really thought his record would stand a lot longer, and here's Federer and Nadal, who could both break it.

and i agree, Nadal needs to prove more, so i think the greatest still goes to Pete.
 
Nadal is amazing to watch and is the best in the world.

He is still young, so that could be good, or it could be bad.

He could go down hill quick, get hurt, etc.
If he continues his path of destruction, he will surpass Sampras.
 
Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: Farang
Federer can't be it because he was outmatched by a contemporary.
Click to expand...

Sampras lost the Australian Open to Agassi at least twice and never even made it to the French finals, which Agassi had won.
Click to expand...

I just remember seeing the stats between the two after the Australian Open and Nadal's record against Federer overall was dominant. I could be wrong, I dunno how often they meet on clay vs grass and other factors, but the numbers seemed pretty convincing as to who was the better player
 
Originally posted by: Farang
Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: Farang
Federer can't be it because he was outmatched by a contemporary.
Click to expand...

Sampras lost the Australian Open to Agassi at least twice and never even made it to the French finals, which Agassi had won.
Click to expand...

I just remember seeing the stats between the two after the Australian Open and Nadal's record against Federer overall was dominant. I could be wrong, I dunno how often they meet on clay vs grass and other factors, but the numbers seemed pretty convincing as to who was the better player
Click to expand...

I think those numbers are somewhat skewed because they don't account for the fact that Nadal was losing to other players in major tournaments that Federer later won, and a lot were on clay before Nadal started being good on other surfaces. But it is a damning number at the moment.
 
Originally posted by: sash1
Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: Farang
Federer can't be it because he was outmatched by a contemporary.
Click to expand...

Sampras lost the Australian Open to Agassi at least twice and never even made it to the French finals, which Agassi had won.
Click to expand...

yeah, Sampras could never win the French. Federer could but Nadal is in his way every year.

i grew up a huge Sampras fan. i really thought his record would stand a lot longer, and here's Federer and Nadal, who could both break it.

and i agree, Nadal needs to prove more, so i think the greatest still goes to Pete. though i may be bias cause i liked him so much.
Click to expand...

sampras had to play against connor, agassi, lendl, boris, etc.
much more greats then than today.
 
Andre Agassi.

Agassi is the only man to have achieved a Career Grand Slam by winning on at least three different surfaces. He is also the only player with an Olympic Title also, called a Career Golden Slam, although Tennis was absent from the Olympics for 64 years, from 1924-1988. Link
 
No Lendl? No Chang? No Boris? No McEnroe? No Connors? (The list goes on and on... each "great" in various ways)

I think Sampras is a great player, and could best just about anyone out there.

On the other hand, Steffi Graf and Monica Seles on the womens' side. Hell, Graf easily bested men at times. Then you have Everett, King, Navratalova, the Williams sisters.

I don't think any particular player can be crowned "greatest". You also have to look at what technology has done too... it arguably has changed the game (no more "woodies" with 25lb tension).
 
Originally posted by: Baked
Andre Agassi.

Agassi is the only man to have achieved a Career Grand Slam by winning on at least three different surfaces. He is also the only player with an Olympic Title also, called a Career Golden Slam, although Tennis was absent from the Olympics for 64 years, from 1924-1988. Link
Click to expand...

added 🙂
 
Originally posted by: SunnyD
No Lendl? No Chang? No Boris? No McEnroe? No Connors? (The list goes on and on... each "great" in various ways)

I think Sampras is a great player, and could best just about anyone out there.

On the other hand, Steffi Graf and Monica Seles on the womens' side. Hell, Graf easily bested men at times. Then you have Everett, King, Navratalova, the Williams sisters.

I don't think any particular player can be crowned "greatest". You also have to look at what technology has done too... it arguably has changed the game (no more "woodies" with 25lb tension).
Click to expand...

yeah, men like you and me right?
i highly doubt that's true.
 
Becker has always been my favourite player of all time. I watched every match of his I possibly could.

Hard for me to pick the greatest of all time...so I won't try.

KT
 
Originally posted by: Baked
Andre Agassi.

Agassi is the only man to have achieved a Career Grand Slam by winning on at least three different surfaces. He is also the only player with an Olympic Title also, called a Career Golden Slam, although Tennis was absent from the Olympics for 64 years, from 1924-1988. Link
Click to expand...

heck no.

he over-achieved for a guy his size, had a huge heart and a crowd favorite.
he was good, not great and won with his speed, not power.

good player yes. to be considered among the best, no.
 
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
Originally posted by: Baked
Andre Agassi.

Agassi is the only man to have achieved a Career Grand Slam by winning on at least three different surfaces. He is also the only player with an Olympic Title also, called a Career Golden Slam, although Tennis was absent from the Olympics for 64 years, from 1924-1988. Link
Click to expand...

heck no.

he over-achieved for a guy his size, had a huge heart and a crowd favorite.
he was good, not great and won with his speed, not power.

good player yes. to be considered among the best, no.
Click to expand...

so you like guys with great skill and no heart? like roddick?
 
Originally posted by: Summit
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
Originally posted by: Baked
Andre Agassi.

Agassi is the only man to have achieved a Career Grand Slam by winning on at least three different surfaces. He is also the only player with an Olympic Title also, called a Career Golden Slam, although Tennis was absent from the Olympics for 64 years, from 1924-1988. Link
Click to expand...

heck no.

he over-achieved for a guy his size, had a huge heart and a crowd favorite.
he was good, not great and won with his speed, not power.

good player yes. to be considered among the best, no.
Click to expand...

so you like guys with great skill and no heart? like roddick?
Click to expand...

this is not about who i like.
roddick is not even on the radar on the list of tennis greats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top