Who is the greatest men's tennis player ever?

In 1974, when he was 39, Rosewall defeated Tanner, Newcombe and Smith - three of the top 5 at the time - one after another to reach the Wimbledon final against a young Jimmy Connors. I repeat, 39! Personally I think Ken rates just below Laver and Federer as the best in the Open era. Sampras would probably beat anyone on grass most times. Nadal would beat anyone on hard court nearly always. Gonzales was a huge presence - often ignored but absolutely huge.

I agree about Roy Emerson since during the time he won 3 of the gram slams were played ONLY on grass? Imagine Rafa playing 3 GS on clay and Fed on HC.

I think that Federer, Nadal and Dj are the best three players of all time. I think the standard of tennis prior to Connors was too poor for any of those players to be considered amongst the greatest in the game. The nostalgia I have for tennis is actually the late 70s till the beginning of this century. Your right that the art of volleying has largely been lost with the notable exception of Federer who I see as the greatest of all time, but if Dj wins the Golden Slam...The game now is also fairly boring with variety and styles having largely been lost to relentless groundstroke pounding and I think mens tennis will go through a major slump when Federer departs the scene.

Rosewall never won Wimbledon because he never competed at that tournament in his prime. If you consider the fact that he still played the final at the ages of 36 and 39, I think this person deserves a lot of respect. Indeed the game progressed to a new level and their are more players on the tour. What is very strange that only 4 players are dominating the others!!! Nadal won 9 French Opens and many other clay court titles. Where are the others. Even with so many players around he is not even challlenged! Either Djokovic, Federer and Nadal are so outstanding or the others are so menthally weak and one dimensional. For sure the game is more obsessive and one dimesional then in the era of Rosewall and Laver. Players were more complete in that time. Laver and Rosewall were the best in their era but they couldn't dominate like the modern stars because there were less players but more outstanding players around ( Nastase, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Okker, Kodes, Gonzales, Orantes, Smith etc etc ). Like Laver has said tennis is a menthal game and you can only compare players in their own era. Maybe Laver and Rosewall were overpowered by these modern players with their size and explosive rackets. I think that tall players with their .equipment have an unfair advantage, many aces and cheap points because of their equipment. In the past the game was slower, nicer to watch and not so obsessive! It is only a game. Laver and Rosewall deserve a lot of respect because of their longevity and their contribution to the game. When Laver and Rosewall were competing Borg and Connors they were in their late thirties and the youngsters in their prime. Borg needed 5 sets to beat a 36 years old Laver. Connors also had problems to beat an aging Laver. Need I say more! Amen.

I don't have to youtube it, I have sat 10 feet away from Rosewall v Connors in the 1977 aust indoor final on a hardcourt. Connors won in straight sets but it was well fought. Rallies were amazing. Connors at his peak world no 1, Rosewall was 42. I'me thinking you might never have held a wooden racquet let alone played with one. Youtube footage doesn't always give the full impression. The top spin, power and sweetspot of todays racquets was non existant. They were much heavier, tiny head comparatively and weighted completely differently. Also a grass court back then was much faster with a lower bounce due to the way they were prepared. Djokovics ability to cover the baseline and hit counterattacking shots would be gone. If you concede nothing else, you would have to concede that guys like Laver and Rosewall could volley much, much better than almost anyone today. That would be the difference and I think Novak would lose. Remember the type of game played today by Djokovic is a direct product of the different racquet technology. I'm just saying you shouldn't dismiss so easily the players of the 60's and before if you don't really understand the different skill set that they had. If you want to youtube, there are Laver v Borg and Connors exhibition matches. Try them. Laver usually loses in close fought matches but Connors and Borg were at their peak, and Laver pushing 40, basically retired but still out there making some $$ for the retirement fund. Watch that and imagine him 10 years younger and you might get the picture.

No I dont think Novak would win i know he would! Lets try it another way try imagine this...take Rosewall or Laver in their prime. Give all 5 foot 6 of them a modern racquet. Put them in a time machine and onto any tennis court in 2016. Put Federer or Dj at the other end of the court. Do you think Rosewall or Laver would win a game? I suggest you sit down and youtube a Rosewall match and then compare it to a Federer match...more relevant still watch Connors Rosewall in the US Open and / or Wimbledon finals of 1974. That is for me when tennis became a modern game going from black and white to colour and the first modern racquet.

Old grainy You Tube footage doesn't do justice to the wooden racquet era. I sat courtside as a kid and watched Conners play Rosewall in the final of the Australian indoor around 77/78. Connors in his prime and Rosewall about 42/43. Connors won, and played brilliantly, but Rosewall made him play and the touch and finesse of the veteran against the power of Connors was amazing to see, especially Rosewall's backhand. It's a shot that is legendary for a reason. Are you aware that by drawing the line under Connors, you are actually starting at the beginning of the metal racquet era, when racquet technology started changing the ganme and produced greater power?

Why does he need to translate to today? It was a different era. It needs pespective. Try imagining this...take Djokovic as he is now. Give him a wooden racquet. Put him in a time machine and on to a fast grasscourt in the 60's. Put Rosewall or Laver at the other end of the court. Do you think Novak would win?

If we were to count only major titles won by players as professionals (a fairer assessment, in my point of view), an all time Top 10 list would be as follows: 1 - ROSEWALL - 19 MAJORS (2 AO, 1 FR, 1 USO, 8 French Pro's, 5 Wembley Pro's, 2 Us Pro's); 2 - FEDERER - 17 MAJORS (4 AO, 1 FR, 7 W, 5 USO); 3 - SAMPRAS - 14 MAJORS (2 AO, 7 W, 5 USO); = - NADAL - 14 MAJORS (1 AO, 9 FR, 2 W, 2 USO); 5 - LAVER - 13 MAJORS (1 AO, 1 FR, 2 W, 1 USO, 1 French Pro's, 4 Wembley Pro's, 3 US Pro's); 6 - GONZALES - 12 MAJORS (4 Wembley Pro's, 8 US Pro's); = - DJOKOVIC - 12 MAJORS (6 AO, 1 FR, 3 W, 2 USO); 8 - BORG - 11 MAJORS (6 FR, 5 W); 9 - CONNORS - 8 MAJORS (1 AO, 2 W, 5 USO); = - LENDL - 8 MAJORS (2 AO, 3 FR, 3 USO); = - AGASSI - 8 MAJORS (4 AO, 1 FR, 1 W, 2 USO);

Yes, but one of those Grand Slams by Laver was on the amateur circuit (1962). He wasn't facing the best competition, who were all on the pro circuit. It's a little like a player today winning all four majors as a junior. Gael Monfils won the Australian Open, the French Open, and Wimbledon in 2004, as a junior. Great achievements, but after he got to the pro's he has yet to win any major, let alone three in the same year. And that's because the competition is stiffer. That's the reason why Laver's 1969 Grand Slam is way more meaningful than his 1962 Grand Slam, because in the 2nd time he did it against the best. As for Budge, I find it harder to judge. He completed the Grand Slam in 1938, and back than the pro circuit wasn't that well established as was in the 1950's and 1960's. So I don't really know if he did it by facing the best players in the world or not. The point I'm making is that you can't count as achievements of the highest order what a player did as an amateur, specially when there was an established pro circuit going on, where were all the best players in the world competing against each other. That's why people should only count the majors these players won as professionals (specially after WWII, when the pro circuit became well established). Laver's 1962 Grand Slam is meaningless to the current discussion. Way more meaningful is his "triple crown" of professional majors in 1967, and the Grand Slam in 1969.

Has Federer won the Grand Slam twice (all 4 grand slams in a calender year)? No. Has Federer won the Grand Slam (all 4 grand slams in a calender year) at all? No. Has Laver? Yes he has won the Grand Slam (all 4 grand slams in a calender year) twice. Federer would be rated as the second greatest player but not the greatest.

Actually Rod Laver won the Grand Slam (all 4 grand slams in a calender year) twice and Don Budge won it once.

Well, the thing is we can't really compare players across generations, let alone eras. It's hard enough to assess how a prime Roger Federer (2005/2006) would fare against the current Djokovic, let alone how would this duo compete against the likes of Laver & Rosewall. A lot has changed in the game over the years. Today's players appear to be faster, stronger, and do have way better equipment. So a real comparison is kind of impossible. The only base we have to compare are the stats. It is for sure a blunt instrument of comparison, but it is the best available. And on that front "old timers" as Rosewall and Laver still stand out to today's players. Rosewall won 19 majors as a professional player, the most in history for a professional player(15 majors on the pro circuit before the open era, and 4 majors in the Open Era). Laver won 13 majors as a professional player (8 majors on the pro circuit before the open era, and 5 maors in the Open Era), managing to win all four on the same season (1969), to this day the only professional player to do so. These are pretty hefty achievements, and shouldn't be taken so lightly, even though today's players are incredible on their own (I mean, just today Djokovic won 4 majors in a row). PS> On the majors stats I believe a lot of people here are mishandling those stats, specially regarding Rosewall and Laver. Rosewall did win 23 majors, but that count puts together majors won as amateur (when he wasn't competing against the best players) with the titles he won as a pro. The same thing goes for Laver an his 19 majors. There's a reason why no one ever considerer Roy Emerson to be the greatest player of all time, despite being the leader on the category of "majors won" till fairly recently. And that's because all of his 12 majors came as an amateur, meaning he wasn't facing the best competition of his time, who were on the Pro circuit.

What is this obsession with Rosewell? Why don't you all go to youtube and actually watch him play - maybe against Connors in the US Open or Wimbledon of 1974! Think olden day Ramesh Krishnan. Then watch a match involving Federer and if you still think Rosewell is the GOAT then your seriously deluded!

Rosewall also won the "triple crown" in 1963.

Oh and And re Rosewall is still, to this day, the oldest Slam finalist at 39 years and 310 days, when he lost the 1974 US Open decider to Jimmy Connors; 18 years Rosewall’s junior. Did we forget to mention that Rosewall only won 2 games in that Match!!! I see this match and the Wimbledon final between the same two players as representing the step to modern tennis and that any discussion of the GOAT starts from Connors

Actually Amazonfan is pretty much the only commentator who makes any sense at all. But a few other reality checks - The Australian doesn't really count for much prior its move to hard court. The Grand Slam was less meaningful prior to recent times with each now played on a different surface with a greater depth of players - You actually cant consider a player from the 50s and 60s they just weren't that good - let alone one who didn't win the sports biggest tournament - and NO could have, would have, should have - you either have won a Grand Slam or you haven't....So all hail King Federer 34 and No 2 in the world while competing against two other players, who, with Federer, will go down as the three greatest players of all time

Actually Rosewall as the greatest of all time is pretty ridiculous. He was / is 5 foot 6 with a game that doesn't translate - I pretty much dont think that anyone before Connors can be considered. I rate Federer as first, Nadal as second, Sampras as third and Dj as 4th and Borg as fifth. As for the cant split Nadal and Federer. That argument is over Federer is nearly 35 and Number 2 in the world. Nadal is 29 and is in the last gasps of a fading career

Rosewall never won Wimbledon because he didn't compete in 46 Slams. This is the only reason if you consider the fact that he still played the Wimbledon final at the age of 35 and 39!

I fully agree with the phrase before 1975 Rosewall was the best player of all time. The word is longevity. Rosewall could still win an ATP title at the age of 43. Rosewall could despite his limited size compete with guys like Newcombe, Ashe and Smith and missed 46 Slams. He was an all court player and I wonder how many more slams he could have won on any surface! The disavantage of Federer is that he is being dominated by Nadal. He just couldn't figure out how to beat this mentally tough player. This is a major weakness if you want to be considered as the best player of all time.Nowadays tall strong players have an unfair advantage because of their advanced equipment!