Sitting in the murky hollows of a bar in Shoreditch a few years back, I entered into a discussion-come-expletive-laden argument on who was the best tennis player of all time.
Not the first alcohol fuelled debate on this topic, and after today’s enthralling Australian Open final, it is sure not to be the last.
My standpoint back then was that Grand Slam titles speak louder than megaphones and Roger Federer had not long before claimed the record.
‘Pistol’ Pete Sampras, the man who was previously acknowledged by many of the game’s insiders to be the ‘greatest ever’, had recently anointed the Fed Express as a better player than himself.
Rod Laver, the other candidate for the crown had refused to compare the players from different eras and in doing so remained boringly neutral on the issue, perhaps an unspoken nod to the Swiss.
But with Federer passing the grand slam record and playing during his prime with an ease and fluidity that had never been seen before on the tennis court, I felt he had done enough to warrant the ‘best ever’ tag.
But by the rationale of my adversary on this matter, there was no way I could conclude that Federer was the best of all time, as his man Rafa had clearly built an unquestionable edge over him in head to head battles.
Nadal had even beaten the him ‘in his own backyard’ when he dethroned Federer on grass in the epic 2008 Wimbledon final.
Then a year later in Australia, Nadal induced tears from the Swiss Master where it became apparent that despite being held in such high esteem by so many from a historical standpoint, Federer was clearly not even the best player on tour anymore.
How could the ‘greatest ever’ be so clearly dominated by another from his own generation?
Federer may have been slightly past his prime at this point but he was clearly no tennis pensioner, Nadal had been beating him on clay since 2005, and now had his measure across all surfaces.
In term of overall head to head matches (helped by many of them occuring on clay courts) and particularly in slam tennis, Nadal had the wood on him to the extent that he could have doubled as a tree lopper.
My pal then pressed his point by adding that the class of opponent was also a relevant talking point, as much of Federer’s sucess had come at the expensive of Baghdatis, Roddick, Hewitt and Safin. Not exactly Agassi, Becker, Courier and Edberg who were the competition that Sampras had to deal with.
After the mist had risen, the logic of his argument began to settle and from then on, I switched my worthless vote to Team Rafa.
But I sit here today, a terribly confused tennis fan. Because if I choose to follow this very same logic, am I now to consider Novak Djokovic as the best ever player to hold a racquet?
After the monumental tussle with Nadal in Melbourne, the big serving Serb has now beaten the Spaniard in the last 3 grand slam finals, but it is this victory that the Djokovic will be drawing from in the future and that Rafa will be trying hardest to forget.
Although Nadal still holds a slight edge in their overall record, Djokovic has now won their last 7 encounters and has taken his game to a level which appears unattainable for Nadal and his injury prone body.
The scariest part of all is, this could just be the beginning. For me, Novak resembles some kind of Tennis Terminator, and although Rafa did his best T-1000 impersonation, complete with body contorting liquid metal forehands, he was left with only the runners up plate and thoughts of Hasta la Vista.
But when the two players undoutedly meet again, it is difficult to fathom just how Nadal might go about toppling Djokovic from his perch.
In much the same way Federer let his ascendancy slip back in 2008 on the grass of SW19, this loss in Melbourne could really represent the changing of the tennis hierarchy and it is a loss that will permanently etch itself into the psyche of both of these champions.
The match made for fascinating tennis and was a topsy-turvy encounter with both players looking destined for victory at different stages. Despite starting the stronger of the two, Nadal looked a shadow of his usual self in the 4th set, and faced three break points at 3-4 down with Novak seemingly cruising toward victory.
But displaying the tenacity that’s led the us to revere the Spaniard, Nadal rose from the dead and had all the momentum going into the 5th set. Like a dazed heavyweight, Djokovic could barely walk through the closing stages and it looked a virtual impossibility that he could conjure the strength to continue as the match inched towards six hours.
But he somehow found the energy and secured his third Australian Open crown with a cool head and some big hitting.
Nadal must really be wondering how he can beat Novak, knowing that he had the huge advantage over his opponent with an extra days rest and the fact that Djokovic’s semi final was also an epic, energy-zapping 5 setter.
So lets make the relatively safe assumption that with his amazing serve volley style, Sampras reached a level of grand slam success that left the likes of Laver, Borg and Emerson behind and hence, was anointed the greatest ever player.
Federer eclipsed this record with his effortless ground strokes and an eerie ease that led him to take over the greatest ever title.
Along came Rafa and with his intestinal fortitude, mental strength and superior head to head record against Fed, he snatched the tag for the briefest of moments.
Enter No-Djo with his robotically consistent ground strokes and his ability to put the ball within a few inches of the line with amazing regularity, and as he now has the clear edge on Rafa, can lay claim to the title of the best of all time. Seems like decent sporting logic to me.
There are many out there that ask: why don’t we just shut the hell up and enjoy the tennis. Quit swabbling about the greatest of all time and stop and smell the can of freshly cracked tennis balls. But the debate is sure to rage on like the homophobia burning in the soul of Margaret Court.
Given that it is a sport that is based around an, albeit a somewhat flawed, points & ranking system, the question will inevitably arise.
Maybe Rocket Rod did have a point in that it is difficult to compare those from different eras. But we are now in the unique situation that three of these guys are still currently duking it out against each other, so the question seems more relevant than ever.
If the Tennis Terminator continues on his path of Grand Slam destruction and maintains this phenomenal level for the next few seasons, when it comes to this reoccurring debate over the greatest ever tennis player, it must be – advantage Djokovic.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
Djokovic beat Nadal and Federer at last year's US Open.
clipper
Guest
Purple Shag, all this comparing to past players is very speculative. Sure, if you gave Laver a modern racquet and put him against Djokovic he would struggle, but if you gave him 1 -2 years to get used to it I'm sure the result would be different. After all Laver still would have his forehand and Rosewell would still have his backhand, so would still hold their own today. The other way of looking at it is - what would happen if you moved the players of today back to Lavers era, and had them play with their wooden racquets - Nadal and Djokovic would most likely struggle, but I would think Federer would still go OK. The other point when comparing GS titles to consider is that a lot of great players didn't come down to Australia, and therefore harmed their GS records. Borg only come to Australia once, and in the 7 years that followed he may easily have added more to his 11 tally (and the fact the he retired early) therefore he would have the record and not Sampras. Connors is another who won one Australian, lost a final, and never came back, Another point when comparing Lavers double GS is that the first one came in 1962 when many of the great players were banned, and although a remarkable feat, it was not as remarkable as the 1967 slam. Rosewell was out of action from 1957 to 1967, so he too would have had many more than his 8 GS titles.
Marcus
Guest
The other great player who you've forgotten is Agassi. 16 grand slam finals and 8 wins. And a mess of a personal life. Having seen him absolutely torch Sampras, and having seen him at the age of 35 take Roger to 5 sets, when everyone else was dispatched quicker than your average football match, I am not sure why he is overlooked in these comparisons.....
Marcus
Guest
All are great players, the greatest of all time, which puts Murray's travails into context. Roger Rafa Novak : Paper scissors stone? Because Djokevic takes the ball so early, handles Rafa's spin superbly, and has a double handed backhand, he has been able to dominate Rafa. Mainly because he hits the ball back so quickly, he disrupts Rafa's tempo; Rafa has a big backswing and he doesn't always get time to wind it up against Djokevic. Rafa trumps Roger because his huge left hand forehand topspin undoes Roger's one-handed backhand. Also Of the 8-2 Grand Slam record, 4 were clay, so 4-2 is another way of looking at it, except that Wimbledon 2008 was a nocturnal lottery, and Australia 2009 Roger was playing with a bad injury...so I think (outside of Clay), it could easily be less unflattering to Roger. Roger vs Novak is always very tight these days, although until last week, Roger was the most likely player to beat Novak.... in his heyday, maybe Roger would have played Novak with a stick of rhubarb, like he did at the French... Let's see how they all end up when they've finished. Roger has some historical scores and scars to settle.....and I'm sure the others all have something to say. Plus Del Potro is no slouch....the only man to beat Rafa and Roger in a grand slam ...
ohtani's jacket
Guest
If not for Nadal and Djokovic, Federer would've challenged Margaret Court's record of 24 Grand Slam titles and completed a Calendar Slam at least three times by now, but men's tennis would be worse for it. He's still playing excellent tennis and is a brilliant number three. I doubt Djokovic or Nadal will be as good as Federer from age 27 onwards and I can't think of too many champions who played as well as Federer after the Grand Slams dried up. I don't think there's any question that Federer to date has been the better player than Nadal and Djokovic. Both those guys had to go through Federer to get to where they're at and it's arguably lifted their games. Personally, I can't see Nadal or Djokovic achieving as much as Federer has on multiple surfaces. We're starting to see Nadal struggle on hardcourt now and I think his peak was clearly 2010.
Purple Shag
Roar Guru
You have to be a little more forgiving on the younger generation Jin. We can only use statistics to compare people from from era's that we didn't have the privilege of seeing. Back then they used wooden racquets, the game was very different and it was an amazing achievement that Laver won the grand slam... twice. But with the professionalism and the way the game has changed, it is hard to see how the guys back then would cut it against the stars of today. Maybe if Laver was born 30 years later, he could have been as good if not better. But he wasn't. So whilst he can be acknowledged as the best of his generation, if you took him in his prime, gave him a modern day racquet and moved him to today, i'm fairly certain Djokovic would blow him off the court. That's not a statement of the level of these two players, but merely how much the game has changed. Don Bradman is an exception to this rule, because his average still stands alone as far better than any of the modern day players, and it was a lot harder to play back then due to the uncovered pitches. Also Novak was very close to completing the modern day GRANDSLAM last year. Just a few games away in fact, despite 2 other guys considered to be amongst the best ever playing against him. That is amazing. And the author never went back to sampras as the best ever. Read the article. Sampras crowned best ever - then Federer - then Nadal on the basis that he was dominating Federer - then Djokovic as he is dominating Nadal.
Matt F
Roar Guru
I've often thought that Murray's mental strength is a bit harshly criticised. Couldn't it just be that he's not good enough? Obviously when you look at the rankings, there's a clear Top 4. However if you look at the top 4 players, there's also a clear top 3, a clear top 2, and a clear number 1. The fact that Murray hasn't yet won a slam might not be that he's choked but just that he's run into players that are better then him. I know Murray tends to end the year quite well but that, to me, has always been mainly because the likes of Nadal and Djokovic (especilly last year) were physically spent towards the end of the season. The British press have a long history of over-rating their local sport heroes, just look at their football team. Almost every tournament they're talked up as potential winners despite consistently having a fairly average squad which always seems to have serious holes in key positions.
K Jin
Guest
The logic is hard to follow. Sampras is the best ever until the writer concludes Federer has overtaken him. But then Federer turns out to have feet of clay,being unable to have to best Nadal,a man who will be not just today but for alltime a left hander, in more than 1 in 3 encounters. So the writer goes back to Sampras as the best ever. Sampras a man who not only never won a GRANDSLAM, the four majors in the same year, but never ever won one of the majors individually. Surely if results,and not just what one is watching on a TV screen right now, mean anything. A man who one 2 GRANDSLAMS 6 years apart and that 6 year gap,his prime playing years,came about because he was banned for turning professional. Is unassailable as the best ever. They say a great man is not recoginised is his own country. Many American greats say Laver is the best ever. But in Australia many such as this writer cannot see the obvious. Perhaps they should watch more tennis outside of bars, or perhaps it is a cultural cringe,a politically correct anti-Australian bias.
Rory
Guest
You could include “almost” but moving on – I agree, when it comes to the business end of a grand slam, Murray looks a mental mess on the evidence of the last few years. But have we forgotten that it’s not so long ago that Djokovic would routinely pull out of matches when conditions got tough and his mental strength was regularly questioned? It seems unthinkable now that he eats five setters for breakfast. Murray only needs to do it once to get the hoodoo off. That will change the dynamic among the top 4 and then we have a slowly fading Federer… I know Djokovic has had an amazing 12 months but I want to see him do it again this year before I’m a convert. To be truly ion the company of Nadal, Federer and the greats of the past he needs to hold this pattern for a while
Rory
Guest
clipper
Guest
Always an interesting discussion, and hard to reach a definitive answer. Nadal has the mental edge on Federer, but Djokovic now has the mental edge on Nadal. Laver won two slams, but never dominated players like Gonzales or Rosewell, although having slightly better head to head records. Sampras only reached the FO semi once, and I don't think can be included with the greats mentioned, all of whom have great all round records. Undoubtedly Federer would have more French slams, if it weren't for Nadal, who would have to be the greatest clay courter of all time. Let's enjoy this time where you have maybe 3 of the top 5 all time players in action.
willjohn
Roar Rookie
Speaking of the Rockhampton rocket, does anybody doubt he could hold his own with the current bunch?
Matt F
Roar Guru
It's a very interesting discussion. On the one hand, Federer has won more grand slam titles then any other player (singles titles anyway) and yet, as you say, since Nadal and now Djokovic have arrived his results have dried up a bit and he's now a clear third. Is he the greatest of all time or is he, whilst still being a true champion of the game, perhaps had his record assisted a little bit by playing a big part of his career in an era where there was no real competition? Hewitt was obviously a player who benefitted by the quirk of timing. He won his grand slams in between the Sapras era and Federer era (obviously he did beat Sampras in 2001 but Sampras was past his peak at the time.) That's not to take away from what Hewitt did, winning two grand slams is a magnificent achievement, and he was number one for a long period of time as well, but it's smething that probably wouldn't have happened if he was 5 years younger.
Alex
Guest
One thing you have to remember is that federer was probably just on the down as these guys were on the rise. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.
Purple Shag
Roar Guru
If I ever change my name, there is every chance i'll stick 'unassailable logic' in the middle section. I was actually taking what you said on board until you got to the part about Murray. He has the mental toughness of a preschooler and I doubt he'll ever win a slam. The pressure from the British press is enough to make anyone clammy but going off his Grand Slam final appearances he isn't going to shake that monkey anytime soon. Getting back to No-Djo vs Federer - that French semi final could have gone either way also which would have given Novak a real shot at the calender GS. I agree it's great that 4 guys are playing some pretty phenomenal tennis, but that just makes Novak's run even more impressive. If he keeps it rolling and chalks up another slam (or even two) this year, he is well on his way. And with a build that looks custom built for tennis, he has plenty of time ahead to keep racking up the slams, cause he clearly is the steeliest of competitors between the ears.
Rory
Guest
Almost unassailable logic purple shag, but head to head isn't really the way to judge tennis greatness. It is common knowledge that the Nadal left handed forehand and swing serve to Federer's single handed backhand has lead to disproportionate H2H figures so it is best to view such stats in context. Otherwise you would have to look at Federer v Djokovic career H2H and consider that Federer was the only player to seriously worry Dokovic last year. Victory in the French semi was very nearly backed up by victory in the US semi but for a freakish forehand slap by Djokovic on match point. Things are also very close between all these guys and the balance could easily tip during 2012. Murray could well be the man - he really could (should) have won his semi final. It is incredible how often Novak is winning 7/5 in the fifth against his 3 main rivals. Just shows he has the mental edge at the moment, but just as he used Federer and Nadal as the benchmark to improve his game, at this very moment others are benchmarking him. All that said, he is playing incredibly well, with confidence and assurance, and deserves his no 1 ranking for now.