Greatest of all time? Who cares, men's tennis currently has the greatest five of all time!

Are you lot saying Stan Warinka is equal standard player to Becker/Lendl/Edberg/Wilander?

When Gonzalez played they only had 3 pro majors a year and and in some years they only held one and in other years Gonzalez didn;t bother to journey to the two European ones. The field sizes varied a lot for these tournaments usually from 8 to 32, but it was always an elite, over 17 years the only two US pro tournaments not won by the big three had a field of four and did not include them. So in some ways the estimate could be conservative. They also played 5 setters with no tie breaks so the matches would go on for longer.

Volleys aren't easier today, come on. If they were, guys would be coming to net a lot more with much more success. Doesn't matter how good the racquets are, if players are blasting shots from the baseline, there's not much you can do sometimes with any racquet, let alone the speed they're coming at, you have no time to think. If you want to say volleying is easier with an average, slower ball, fine, but that's a lot different than the passing shots players are seeing in real matches, which I'd think that's what we're talking about, but guess not. It's just like the helmets they use in football. They protect the player wearing them more, but the other players can use them as weapons to be able to hurt you more. The racquets are better equipped for every type of shot, true, but your opps have the same type of racquet you're using. Their shots in same situations nullify any advantage you have with your racquet. I don't buy players can't volley very well today. Maybe slightly worse than past eras, but I don't see the lack of skill here. I see awesome approach shots all the time, and then McEnroe or whoever criticizes these approaches saying they aren't good enough. Well, yes, he's right, only because the other player ends up winning the point, but the actual approaches are often very good. We just don't see 'net game' played nearly as much today. Isner isn't a good volleyer. We've heard commentators, etc. talk about Fed's commitment to coming to net a lot for 7-8+ years now, I thought that was common knowledge, too. He actually played serve/volley a ton when he was younger. Fed is 100% healthy now, playing with a bigger racquet which helps his backhand more though forehand less, is more committed to hitting through his backhand. These things are contributing to him being able to come to net more, but he's almost always been committed to doing this. Since he started having regular coaches back in 2010-2011 with Annacone, they've all been focused on finding ways to get him to get net as much as possible. But in today's game, when you come to net, it almost always has to be off of great shots or surprise tactics, and definitely on your terms.

Sorry if i wasn't clear. I wasn't explaining why volleys are harder because if anything they are easier. Just mentioning that due to the power of todays racquets you have to be careful not to land them long - minor adjustment - but the lightness of the racquets, with larger heads and huge sweet spots more than compensates. Not sure why you would think they are harder, but I'm talking about the volley as a shot, as distinct from a tactic. Hope that's clear. You say volleying is the least important part of the game. That is true, as the game is mostly played professionally at present. Many think volleying is too hard due to the ability of your opponent to play attacking shots from defensive position (those damn racquets again). I'm saying of course it is going to be hard when you can't volley properly in the first place, when you don't have technique, and also when you don't have the instinct to know when to come in and when it is just madness to be anywhere near the net. Not talking about serve/volley (although if Isner was also one of the worlds best volleyers that would be interesting) but clever, intuitive, opportunistic net attacking by someone with a high level of skill in that area. You say that approach shots can never be good enough but of course they can. But the idea of the approach shot does need to be rethought from what it once was. Tennis has always evolved, and I'm sure that will continue. What we see now is not where it ends. Btw of course Federer has always been more willing to volley than most I believe he is making more use of the forecourt than he used to. I actually thought that was common knowledge.

Rory, your comment is kind of confusing. You say volleying isn't harder, but then explain why it's harder today. I'm sure volleying is worse today, that's not really the point. The game has changed, and net game is the least important part of the game. No matter how good of an approach/volley you hit, the other guy often ends up winning the point. Fed has always come to net a lot. This isn't something new in his game. However, he's also the most skilled player of all-time, so it makes it a lot easier for him at net. Nadal only comes to net if he's in a great offensive position, it really isn't part of his game, but you're right, more guys should come to net when they hit a great shot sometimes. Jimmy Arias recently talked about skill/athleticism in Tennis magazine today compared to his day. He talked about how you needed to be skilled back then, but not really a great athlete to win. I'm seeing the same thing. You absolutely have to be a great athlete today. Skill is probably less important, but tennis will always remain a highly-skilled sport. And the top players today are still extremely skillful, and probably the most skilled on tour. I don't buy that height argument. It's too hard to say how tall Laver, etc. would be today. Have to compare what they were. But, even if we give Laver 2 inches, he's still only 5-10 today, which is still tiny for the tour. I'm sure he could be very good today, though he'd have to play a completely different style of tennis, but seriously competing for GS is another matter.

Yeah that's the main deterrent for sure. But you pick your times for coming in. I see guys come in behind topspin drives that land mid court. No wonder they get drilled. on the other hand the old backhand slice approach into the corner wouldn't really cut it now either. But i reckon it can still be done, just that no one apart from Fed has had the ability or courtcraft to work out how.

Volleying isn't really harder today, just the skill isn't learnt, prioritised and practised so much. The ball does fly off the racquet more so its harder to keep from going long, but on the other hand the racquets are much lighter hence easier to move quickly. And volleys tend to stay hit when executed correctly. A lot of tour players simply can't volley - seriously - so it might make it look hard. It amazes me sometimes to see some guys wait at the baseline after hitting a brutal shot, just waiting while a weak retrieve floats back to them instead of getting in to put it away, only to hit another 4 or 5 drives that in turn get retrieved, then maybe they miss. Nadal at his best will sprint in when he sees a floater and kill it. Anyway I don't mean to over emphasize volleying but it's clearly a part of Federer's resurgence (we all knew he should have been doing it years ago). There is a hole in the game where volleying used to be and the guy who fills that hole will reap the rewards in my opinion, provided it's a part of an all round modern game. Just a thought, I might be wrong, but hasn't average height increased over the last 50 years? So if we allow the old guys modern racquets and training, should we also allow them a few extra inches? There is no end to this.

They would be better at volleys but players are also better at passing nowadays

Yeah its like counting Champtions League trophies from back in the day when the winner from the last year only had to play the finals.

Oh Safin, you brilliant mercurial man.

The technology has also changed so much in the rackets, the idea of seeing any of the top guys playing with a small wooden racket is hilarious, except probably Federer. That would be a really fun tournament to see though, get a charity match where they play with the wooden rackets and see how the massive spin they get works.

I feel that Federer is one of the unluckiest players as silly as that sounds, he had to face the greatest clay court player ever and Federer was no slouch pretty much being the second best clay courter for his entire career. He at times probably almost wished he was useless on clay instead of getting so close so many times.

Volleys are much harder today with the bigger players and better technology. I'm sure Laver/Rosewall could be great volleyers, but what's exactly 'great' today? The only player who really serves/volleys is Karlovic, because he has to with his height, and he's never been a major player in GS. I don't care how skilled Laver/Rosewall could be today, being 1/2 foot shorter than Fed, Nadal, and Djoker isn't going to work. How fast do you guys think they could serve today? 110-115 max probably, and if they're serving as hard as they can their accuracy decreases because they're so much shorter(less margin of error on the serve than someone like Isner who can basically serve straight down because of his height). Fed is pretty much the best volleyer in the world, and his net game certainly helps him, but it's the least important aspect of his game.

It also has to be noted, as some have, that the AO was avoided by the best players until 1988, therefore a few before that era could have even more GSs if they ventured down - by the '90's everyone played the AO - if those figures weren't included the 90's GS totals would look a lot worse.

I agree with this, but the reason they were excellent with volleys, as Rory notes, is because you had to be - most were. Would they be as good today seeing that they wouldn't have to use it as much? Rosewall actually had a better H2H over Laver earlier on and had a great backhand and both had smart tennis brains. I'm sure they'd still be fearsome competitors today.

quite often the field was 16, sometimes even 8. Hard to find exact figures

Interesting question - could Laver and Rosewall compete today? It's a different game obviously - racquets, courts, physicality and so on. Obviously you have to imagine them with todays racquets instead of slabs of timber. Give them the training regime and entourage. A huge thing would be that both of them could, in my opinion, volley better than anyone today, including Federer. I'm not including doubles specialists. They nailed their volleys time after time, all day. Federer is a great volleyer but still messes up some sitters. The question is, with todays racquets allowing attacking defense, would they just be targets at the net? Maybe, but on the other hand they may have had the skill and the tennis brains to get to the net in a commanding position. Such a player today could revolutionise the game.

Monkey, the current top 5 is easily the best era ever. The top 3 are so good right now(top 3 ever in my opinion) that it doesn't really matter who's 4th or 5th. The fact that Murray/Stanimal have each broken through to win 3 GS is absolutely amazing playing against Fed, Nadal, and Djoker. Murray is already among the leaders all-time for QF, SF, and F at GS despite playing in this ultra-competitive era. Fed, Nadal, and Djoker are just very greedy and very rarely let others win big tourneys, and that includes the year-end final, where Fed/Djoker have combined to win 11 of the last 14 Finals. Guys like Rosewall(5-7) and Laver(5-8) are certainly all-time greats for their era, but based on size alone, they wouldn't be able to cut it today. And they played when grass was the surface for 3 of the 4 GS. Laver might break through somewhere for a GS, but can anyone really see him beat Fed on grass or Nadal on clay? And Djoker is king of the slow hardcourts it seems.

MM - Yes, that was your assertion (and I pretty much agree with it), but after 30-odd comments in the meantime, you can see that people are trying to assess the evidence for the claim. And that evidence involves how good particular players are/were in any era. While I wish some of the comments above included more evidence as to why the authors think X was better than Y, I can see that they are trying to compare top 5s from other eras with the current top 5.