Modern day GOATs: This is the greatest ever era for watching sports

You got be kidding. Margaret Court she almost got another grand slam in 73 straight after having a child she was clearly better than Chris Evert Lloyd and Martina Navritolova. I think she would easily dominate in the current age, where they are more hopeless than ever. Serena Williams is a 35 year old who could not dominate as well when she was at a younger age and she has won more titles recently. As far as her religious belief its a big suspicion that her match with Bobby Riggs was rigged because Riggs put a big bet for the exact score saying he had seen it in a dream and Court was known to be friends with the men on the old pro circuit, Match fixing is against conservative religious beliefs while being anti gay rights is certainly not.

Craig, way to go out on a limb and say 'Fed/Nadal are two of the greatest all-time.' That should be pretty obvious to say the least. Fed winning 2017 Wimby was weak, huh? Arguably 3 of the greatest players of all-time were in the draw. I think you're dreaming if you think top 50 guys could win GS 15 years ago in 2002. Even if that's remotely true, that's telling me that era was pretty bad. And then you're saying Fed's 2003 Wimby title was easy, just one year later. How did the tour change that much from 2002 to 2003? The top guys are just so good, has been for awhile, that's why we don't see guys outside of the top 10 even coming close to winning GS. In Fed's prime, he wouldn't let lose to anyone outside of top 4-5 ever in GS. Nadal continued this to a lesser extent, and Djoker to a lesser extent after that. I don't think Sampras' era was as easy as clipper suggests, but it's certainly not close to today's era. Sampras, Agassi, etc. never could be dominant at every single GS like Fed, or even Nadal/Djoker.

It's a pretty arbitrary decision and one that you made - that's why my criteria was the second last GS won, which clearly Federer has the much harder run. It has to be viewed over the entire career, not just two examples. As explained by myself and express34texas, the reason most players can't get to the SF or QF today is that the top 4 are so dominant. Warinka who has won 3 GS can't get higher that 3 in the world - that would never have happened in the '90s. I agree with Duecer the Connors / Borg / McEnroe, Laver / Rosewall eras were way better than the 90's as well, in fact most eras I would place above the '90's. I think since the Americans did well in the '90's a few people want to believe it was a strong era.

Clipper I didn't pick Sampras's hardest runs against Federers easiest. I picked both of their first and last grand slams won. Not a random sample, first and last grand slams won. Both of Federers happened to be weak, that's all. Maybe you're too young to have actually seen tennis more than 5 years ago, or I don't know. 15 years ago guys in the top 50 all had a chance of having an impression on a grand slam. Nowadays, anyone outside the top 10 is fairly rubbish and can only hope to make the quarters. You can look at it either way as I said, but I really think the quality of players outside of the top 10 is incredibly low compared to previous era's. I still agree that Federer and Nadal are two of the best of all time, but that doesn't change the fact that the rest of the field has drifted incredibly.

I didn't say Lendl wasn't no. 3, it's just that you've picked what was probably Sampras hardest run to win against Federers easiest run, this is the whole point - I did not say the 2017 W run was better than 1990 US. If you compared that same run against Federers run at the AO 2017, they are pretty similar, with Fed facing one more top 10 player. express34texas explains it pretty well too. Muster may have been 6 at the time, but that was purely on his clay prowess - he never got past a US QF,

McEnroe never won a GS after age 25, and he was 31 in 1990. Craig, it's possible there could be more talent if titles are spread out more, but not necessarily. The top players might just not let anyone else win because they're just so good. I think it's pretty obvious this is easily the greatest era in tennis history. Look at all the talented guys just outside the top 5 and the entire depth of the ATP. It's also not completely accurate to just look at the guys a particular player beats en route to a title, that's not really how tennis works. You need to look at the entire field of the tourney. Nadal, Murray, Djoker, and Stanimal were all present at Wimby this year, all big-time players. Fed just didn't have to play any of them because others beat them along the way. That's how tennis works. But, the overall field of the top guys at Wimby this year was phenomenal.

"As at 1 Jan 1990" Lendl was #1 in the world. I'm not sure how you can't understand that. As at 31 December 1990, Lendl was #3 in the world. He won an Australian open in 1990. Of course Lendl was sliding, but he was the current #1 in the world a the start of the year and current Australian Open champion He also lost in the semi's at Wimbledon. . How on earth could you possibly try and cheapen a victory over him? I didn't talk about a seeding at Wimbledon. I said, McEnroe started the year as number 5. If you're really going to argue that Sampras's wins over Muster, Lendl, McEnroe and Agassi is somehow less impressive that Federers run of Feliciano Lopez, Sjeng Schalken, Andy Roddick and Mark Phillippoussis, then I can't help you my friend. I want some of whatever you're taking. If you're going to use rankings as a tool. I can't see what Phillippoussis was ranked, but he wasn't in the top 36 seeds, Roddick was seeded 5, Schalken was 8. Yet somehow you're discrediting Lendl at #3, Agassi at #4, Muster at #6. Sampras beat the #3, 4 , 6 and McEnroe on his way to the title. How can you possibly argue anything different!!

Yes Margaret Court wouldn't win a game off any of the modern day players. She played and got her titles prior to the professional modern era. Mostly known around the world for her religious views rather than her tennis. But isn't our own Nathan Lyon known as the GOAT. These title things are somewhat meaningless but pass the time!

No doubt Phelps was dominant in Freestyle and Butterfly, but didn't do much in backstroke (although he did get a couple of silvers)- does that lessen his achievements in swimming because there were better people in backstroke, like there was a better person on clay?

No, that is incorrect - he was seeded 4 at Wimbledon, as they seed their own way, lost in the first round and wasn't seeded at the US Open. He hadn't got to a final since 1985. Lendl was no. 1 the year before, no. 3 that year, no. 5 the next, never won a major tournament after the 1990 AO, I would say that's decline, not static or improving.

McEnroe started the year at #5, went up to #4 after the US Open and ended at #13. So actually, he was in the top 10. "Lendl was on the decline" in 1990. What are you talking about? He started the year ranked #1 and ended at #3? He won the Australian Open that year.

Well, the 2003 Wimbledon and 2002 US open look pretty even to me - Roddick was not in the top 10 when facing Sampras and 5 when facing Federer and would finish the year No.1, so higher seed than Agassi who was six. No one can dispute Federer had an easy run this year, but in 1990 Lendl was on the decline and McEnroe was way past his prime not even in the top 10. If we look at the 2nd last GS win we get: 2000 Wimbledon Sampras beat Gimblestob, Bjorkman,Gambil, Volchtkov and Rafter 2017 AO Federer faced Berdych, Nishikori, Zverev, Warwinka and Nadal Not even remotely in the same class of line up - Sampras faced no one in the top 10. Easy to pick different lineups to suit the argument.

Jahangir Khan was as good, if not better than Hunt, but your point is valid - sport is quite fluid - some increase in popularity, some decline. Squash missed out as it doesn't really play that well on TV, and without that you lose your big money. It's a shame about RL - was a strong competitive game with England ahead of Australia, but it has declined so much over there for a variety of reasons - immigration being the big one, that I can't see it ever getting back to it's former glory. Have to side with clipper - the Sampras era was pretty weak - Laver/Rosewall, Connors/Borg/McEnroe and this era are much stronger. His main rival, Agassi went missing for a few years, and the other stars were on their way out. There is no doubt Federer had an easy draw this time around, but you can't always get to face 4 top 10 players in a row like he did in the AO - it would be easy to cherry pick and find a weak draw that Sampras faced, slightly easier for Federer as he's had 5 more wins.

Not even close, did you watch the finals? KD was certainly better offensively, and actually had a much wider gap better defensively where James was often not engaged including not hustling back on defense many times.

I wrote a really long response comparing some of the draws that Sampras and Federer have had to win their titles. I can't be bothered going back, but: Their respective first titles. 2003 Wimbledon from the 4th round Federer beat: Feliciano Lopez, Sjeng Schalken, Andy Roddick and Mark Phillippoussis 1990 US Open, from the 4th round Sampras beat: Muster, Lendl, McEnroe and Agassi. Their respective most recent titles: 2002 US Open - Sampras beat Rusedski, Haas, Roddick, Schalken, Agassi 2017 Wimbledon - Federer beat Zverev, Dimitrov, Raonic, Berdych and Cilic Not exactly the same class of lineups are they?

As I said, it can be argued either way. IMO measuring the number of grand slams the top 5 players have won is an extremely flawed thought process. You can easily argue the top 4-5 players dominated, because the rest of the field is weak. If titles are spread across more players in that era, it is logical to assume that there is a greater amount of talent around.

Bradman statistically, about double anyone else's average, past, present and future, is pretty hard to go past. Phelps would be up there with him. Maybe Slater and Bolt too. Super freaks. My sense (at the point of heresy I'm sure) is that Federer did not dominate Nadal in the same way the others did their peers. To some extent IMO Fed had the advantage of fluidity in his movements as opposed to the physically wearing style of Nadal that robbed the latter of, I think, a number of slams. Having said that, his reflexes, were superhuman. Laver as well is over 20 slams if you count the pros. What I find remarkable about Williams and Federer is how good their footwork and pace is at their age. Usually, that will go by a person's early thirties. It would be interesting to know how they do it. Anyway, always difficult comparing eras. Lew Hoad, with a bad back, had to play Pancho Gonzales week in and week out on the pro tour. The mental strength and physical energy that would take....

What about Don Bradman? Has to be in consideration for the GOAT period?

I would argue completely the other way - the Sampras era was very weak. There was an article on the roar in April highlighting this. http://www.theroar.com.au/2017/04/12/greatest-time-cares-mens-tennis-currently-greatest-five-time/ If we compare the top 5 of different eras, todays top 5 (as it was in April) would be the greatest of all time with the number of slams each of the top 5 won. Here are a few of top five in other eras 1 Jimmy Connors (USA) 8 2 John Newcombe (AUS) 8 3 Björn Borg (SWE) 11 4 Rod Laver (AUS) 11 5 Guillermo Vilas (ARG) 3 1974 41 1 Ivan Lendl 8 2 John McEnroe 7 3 Mats Wilander 7 4 Jimmy Connors 8 5 Stefan Edberg 6 1986 36 1 Jim Courier 4 2 Stefan Edberg 7 3 Pete Sampras 14 4 Goran Ivanišević 1 5 Boris Becker 6 1992 32 1 Pete Sampras 14 2 Marcelo Ríos 0 3 Àlex Corretja 0 4 Patrick Rafter 2 5 Carlos Moyà 1 1996 17 This year the top 5 have 50 titles (51 now) between them - a stunning 34 more than 1996.. So, you are correct in assuming that the top 3-4 make it so much harder for the next batch of the top 20 to win GS. The top 20 from there doesn't even look stronger than now. Apart from Rios, most of the top 20 would have no trouble with the 1998 lot (maybe Phillopusous on a good day would go alright)

Best men ever in sports since end of WW2(in order): 1)Michael Phelps 2)Fed 3)Rod Laver 4)Usain Bolt 5)Wayne Grestky 6)Michael Jordan 7)Tiger Woods 8)Jack Nickalous 9)Kelly Slater 10)Sergy Bubka That's my order(Pele I thought long and hard about in the top 10 since soccer is no 1 game in world, but not sure Pele/Maradonna/Messi/Ronaldo etc have been as dominant as some of the names above. Ronaldo if anything might be the best soccer player of all time, as it's so global now.. Squash isn't big enough but i could be wrong, so maybe Jahinagir Khan.. Mark Spitz too was Uber dominant.. A lot of great athletes from 2000-onwards no doubt about it.