Among the most frequent and intense debates in recent times are between Roger Federer fans and Rafa Nadal fans as to which champion is the greatest of all time.
Federer fans point out the almost unparalleled records Roger has piled up, and the first counter of Rafa fans will be “Check his head to head with Rafa, if you are not the best of your generation, how can you be best of all time?”
Federer fans counter with “It is not a one versus one, but one versus the world, and Federer has proven himself over and over again”. The arguments continue and are often vociferous and bitter.
Novak Djokovic fans are silently watching even as their man is steadily climbing up the GOAT ladder. Rod Laver fans are probably not as vocal as being of a different generation are not seen as much on the net as the Federer, Rafa and Djokovic Fans.
However, I have a different take. Is it actually fair to try and slot someone as the GOAT. Can someone actually be the greatest of all time. After all conditions vary, opponents vary, form and fitness vary, luck of the draw varies from event to event and so on.
I firmly believe that there is no greatest of all time. One is only greatest of his generation. In tennis I feel that a generation lasts for say five years as things change very fast. Hence I feel that one is the best player for five years and my analysis and break up of the last 60 years is as follows
2011-15 Novak Djokovic
2006-10 Rafa Nadal
2001-06 Roger Federer
1996-00 Pete Sampras
1991-96 Jim Courier
1986-90 Ivan Lendl
1981-86 John Mcenroe
1976-80 Bjorn Borg
1971-76 Jimmy Connors
1966-70 Rod Laver
1961-66 Rod Laver
1956-60 Pancho Gonzales
195-56 Pancho Gonzales
Do you agree?
The above tabular representation shows how difficult it is to dominate after a five-year period. Only Pancho Gonzales and Rod Laver figure in two five-year periods. Otherwise it is very difficult to remain at the top, even after reaching there.
The greatness of Federer is that he is competing in as many as three periods. Rafa too was very much there in two, though its unlikely he will make any further impact. Djokovic has already featured in two and is competing fiercely – in fact leading – in a third as well.
Coming to the near future, 2016-2020 will be a five-year reign – but of which player?
Will it be Djokovic who is as of now way ahead of the rest? Will it be Murray who in 2016 has three Slam Finals including the Wimbledon silverware and was the losing finalist in other two?
Or will it be young guns who have yet to make their mark?
Alyssa Coady
Roar Rookie
I agree. Federer has dominated over Nadal and has left a greater impact.
jonty smith
Roar Guru
True. It is hard to compare eras. Novak Djokivic has won 12 grand slam titles in the sam era as arguably 2 of the greatest ever. That is a great achievement but then Rod Laver has won a calender grand slam. Everyone mentioned in the list has done something that is a cut above the rest at that time but you pose a great question
Ritesh Misra
Roar Guru
Very well said . I too feel today Lendl would have probably won a wimbledon. he is a great great player
Ritesh Misra
Roar Guru
wow what an analysis. and detailed info. Thanks a lot. appreciated
Ritesh Misra
Roar Guru
Yes that was the reason i chose him as the dominant player for that 5 years
Ritesh Misra
Roar Guru
True 2001 AND 2002 was the period of no domination by any player. Fading superstars Agassi, Sampras and Ivanisevic pulled out a win each. Gustavo Kuerten showed his class and Hewitt showed promise by winning 2 and showing that he could have been the best player for the next 5 years . . However federer winning 6 from 2003 to 2005 made me chose him as the dominant period for that 5 years
Johnno
Guest
Yes there can. And dominance is measured on how dominant you were in your era. You can only play what's in front of you, and also the rules of the game at the time. Maybe in today's tennis and rules, Agassi would be better than Sampras as there is less reliance on the volley in singles, and That was one of Pete's strength, he was a serve volley player. And the courts have been equalized more, not sure Pete would dominate on grass like he did, if he were around today. Lendl would do better on grass too, and probably would win a wimbledon in today's era if not be no 1, as he was never a serve volley player. To think Lendl with his style of game, made 2 wimbeldon finals when the grass was really classic style fast grass and vs classic servie voller grass court specialists, is a big achievement. In today's era he would probably win a wimbledon.
Tony N
Guest
Browse the following three pages in Wikipedia to compare the records of the greatest players. “All-time tennis records – men's singles” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-time_tennis_records_%E2%80%93_men%27s_singles “Open Era tennis records – men's singles” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Era_tennis_records_%E2%80%93_men%27s_singles#ATP_Rankings_achievements “List of ATP number 1 ranked singles tennis players” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ATP_number_1_ranked_singles_tennis_players
Tony N
Guest
The greatest player is able to dominate the overall tour of players in order to (a) win the biggest, most prestigious titles better than any other player and (b) be ranked the world's best player. That's why, in 1999, the ATP and ITF both chose Andre Agassi as the greatest player of that year -- even though Pete Sampras had beaten Agassi in 4 out of 5 matches that (Sampras won their four most important matches and was World No. 1 from 1993 to 1998). Let’s compare Federer, Nadal and Djokovic’s records when Federer was Nadal’s age today (30 years 7 weeks old). Today Djokovic is 29 years 8 weeks, about 11 months younger than Nadal so they are the same generation. On the other hand, Federer is about 5 years older than Nadal and 6 years older than Djokovic so he is one generation older than Nadal and Djokovic. As we can see below, Federer’s record by that age is overall superior to both Nadal’s and Djokovic’s records. Djokovic’s record is superior to Nadal’s record, except he has two less Slam titles – Nadal is not the best of his own generation, so how can he be best of all time? So what if Nadal was focused on beating Federer but failed to win more big titles, achieve the No. 1 ranking and dominate Djokovic in his generation -- because Nadal failed to dominate the rest of the tour enough? - By mid-September 2011 at age 30 years 7 weeks old, Federer had won 16 Slam titles (in the 6.5 years between mid-2003 and January 2010), reached 23 Slam finals, 29 Slam semi-finals, 34 Slam quarter-finals. Federer also won 5 ATP World Tour Finals titles and reached 6 finals (the following year, between September 2011 and 2012, Federer won 1 more Slam title and 1 more ATP World Tour title). Federer achieved 285 total weeks at World No. 1. Federer was year-end World No. 1 for 5 years (2004-2007, 2009), World No. 2 for 3 years, and World No. 3 for 1 year. 976 total matches. - Nadal has won 14 Slam titles, reached 20 Slam finals, 23 Slam semi-finals, 29 Slam quarter-finals. Nadal failed to win an ATP World Tour Final title but reached 2 finals. Nadal achieved 141 total weeks at World No. 1. Nadal’s dominance was inconsistent: he was year-end World No. 1 for 3 non-consecutive years (2008, 2010, 2013), and World No. 2 for 5 years. It is clear that Nadal’s record is inferior to Djokovic’s record, except for the two Slam titles. 962 total matches. - Djokovic has won 12 Slam titles, reached 20 Slam finals, 30 Slam semi-finals, 36 Slam quarter-finals. Djokovic also won 5 ATP World Tour Finals titles and reached 5 finals. Djokovic achieved 208 total weeks at World No. 1. Djokovic was year-end World No. 1 for 4 years (2011, 2012, 2014, 2015), and World No. 2 for 1 year, World No. 3 for 4 years. 882 total matches.
clipper
Guest
Not to take anything away from Laver, but the other side of that argument is that he had 5 years without Rosewall and 7 or more years without Gonzales. Imagine if Federer had 5 years without Nadal or Djokovic (or the other way around) - Laver didn't taste immediate success on the pro circuit, Rosewall and Gonzales enjoyed an initial winning ratio, so it's an interesting supposition and unfortunately one that can't really be answered.
clipper
Guest
I think that by being so dominant from 2003 (winning 6 GS, double the next player) easily makes him the most dominant for that period - although Agassi was quite dominant 1999-2001 and Hewitt overlapped in 2001-2002, but tailed off after that.
MikeTV
Guest
From June 2005 (Wimbledon) to January 2010 (Australian Open) there were 19 Grand Slams Finals. Roger Federer played in 18 of those Finals and won 12 of them. From September 2010 (US Open) to May 2016 (French Open) there were 23 Grand Slam Finals. Novak Djokovic played in 18 of those Finals and won 11 of them.
MikeTV
Guest
Yes true - the 8 Grand Slams in 2001 and 2002 were won by: Lleyton Hewitt (2) Albert Costa Andre Agassi Goran Ivanišević Gustavo Kuerten Pete Sampras Thomas Johansson
Colin N
Guest
Federer won his first Grand Slam in 2003 so I'm not sure he could be considered dominant the two years preceding that. He was also ranked No. 4 when he won Wimbledon and didn't get to number one until 2004.
Ritesh Misra
Roar Guru
thanks Chinmoy Jena. Rod Laver is superb. 2 calendar Grand Slams that too 7 years apart showcases his achievments which could have been much much more as his best years were in the pro circuit.
Ritesh Misra
Roar Guru
Excellent Points MikeTV and DamianR and Clipper . Pete Sampras should be for the 10 year period, and in Courier's place. Thanks
Chinmoy Jena
Guest
You have tried to get into a very delicate subject. Who, indeed, can be called the greatest? In my opinion it is difficult to choose even you break them up into five year brackets. Most of the fans now will concentrate on Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. It still remains unclear as to who would finally end his career with more titles. As for me it will be Laver.He won 11 Grand Slams but his best years were lost in the professional circuit.One calendar Grand Slam in 1962 and then another in the open era in 1969. Seven precious years lost in professional tennis! Add to those GS singles titles, nine Grand Slam doubles, four Grand Slam mixed doubles and five Davis Cup titles and you can judge the man as a tennis player.
MikeTV
Guest
There is no way that Jim Courier could be considered the best player in the World for the 1991-96 half-decade. Pete Sampras was the best player for the entire decade of 1991-2000. Plus, Ivan Lendl could be tied with Stefan Edberg for the 1986-1991 half-decade. Also, Roger Federer's dominance lasted up until 2009 (actually, he also won the 2010 Aus Open). Federer out performed Rafael Nadal so he would be considered the best player for the entire decade 2001-2010.
DamianR
Guest
Good read. But I bet Mats Willander wishes there was a 1984 - 1988 category! Not much on Courier's CV for last half of his winning period also?
Ritesh Misra
Roar Guru
Good point. I did think about Rosewall from 61-66. Hence looked at their head to head. they did not meet in 61 and 62. in 63 they met 46 times and rosewall won 34. However after that it was Laver all the way. In 64 and 65 too Laver had a better head to head, that, and his Grand Slam led me to put his name and not Rosewall