Opinion The Tennis GOAT

[magpies42]

I’m known for taking on a cause, and particularly where I see injustice. I get that Federer is the most elegant and skilful player to have played the game, and for me plays the most entertaining tennis...but what I can’t understand is how he is considered Greatest Of All Time (GOAT)!

To me the most definitive stat is the Fed v Nadal Head to Head figures, Nadal has a 61% winning ratio (+8 wins). Of Federer’s 19 slams many came against relative plodders like Roddick, Hewitt, Phillapousis, Soderling, Agassi in his twilight...not many against Nadal in finals and none against Djokovic. Nadal on the other hand had to really work for his 16, dominated opponents in the strongest era of tennis ever. Made Fed his b1tch. For this reason as things stand at the moment, it’s wrong to judge GOAT based on one stat (grand slams), Nadal is the greatest.

Coming in second I have Djokovic, better head to Head against both Nadal and Fed, dominated all surfaces, most masters wins, most dominant three years stretch of tennis ever seen, dominant on all surfaces, held all 4 grand slams at once before being hampered by injury. Doesn’t have the slams yet, but if we are comparing apples with apples, then I don’t think Feds early wins have the same weight...Nadal and Djokovic took the game to a whole new level.

Fed comes in third, a marketers dream with the way he plays so gracefully an absolute champion, but based on all the stats and facts definitely can’t be GOAT.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

magpies42 very interesting points of view.

Firstly it's very difficult to select a greatest if all time male player.
As opposed to cricket where there is a clear absolute greatest of all time, Don Bradman, tennis does not quite have that stand out.

Also how do we judge A GOAT? Besides today's media obsession with making current things the greatest of all time. But be that as it may, how to judge tennis greatness?

Is it win, loss, head to heads, victories in major tournaments, rankings?

I think it's fair to say in tennis the standard bearer is grand slams and then add to it actual calendar grand slams.

On that standard we have two stand outs:

• Federer on 19 and Nadal on 16

So that's a starting point. Then I'd throw something else in, actual calendar grand slams.

We have Don Budge and our very own Rod Laver.

Rod Laver has TWO full grand slams.

And that counts big time. Not only that, Laver won a grand slam in the amateur era and one grand slam in the open era. He also missed some years because of that kerfuffle between those eras.

Now that means 3 players could be considered, and should be. I'd leave Bjorn Borg out (just) because he curtailed his own career and the US Open record quirk of his means he just can't be best of all time. Same eg Sampras as he never won the French Open. To be the greatest you should be doing everything or you're lacking something.

Federer v Nadal have battled in 9 grand slam finals with the score:
Nadal 6 v 3 Federer.
The break down is:

French Nadal 4 - 0 Federer; Wimbledon Nadal 1 - 2 Federer; US Nadal 1 - 1 Federer; No Australian finals match up.

And how do we account for the excellence and brilliance of Nadal on clay?

So looking at everything I'd have Rod Laver as the best player overall as the two grand slams are too strong to be ignored.

Then the fight between Federer and Nadal I'd leave to others. Though I'd have Federer overall the better and Nadal the best ever on clay.

One point though, I don't hold the argument that Federer didn't beat much in the finals, you play who you play. And 19 grand slam wins means "luck" of the draw can't be a reason. 19 wins is way too much.

Excellent discussion.

 

[magpies42]

Good points. I think I disregarded all that came before because there were no real complete players (ie little or no flaws in their game) until Federer came along. I guess he improved his backhand as Nadal began to dominate. You would have to assume then in your assessment that Laver could reach the dizzing heights if challenged, he too had limited completion based on the stats in his time.

I don’t buy the Nadal on clay argument though, Fed had an equally good run on a super slick grass surface before they slowed it down (8 grand slams, only one since they slowed the surface down). They also sped up the Australian open surface last year to presumably accomodate Fed and his massive following, it was quicker than Wimbledon. Nadal v Fed final was the most watched ever.

19 wins is a lot, but only 3 more than Nadal...and given the head to Head I have to go with Nadal. I will add Laver to the poll

 

[magpies42]

magpies42 very interesting points of view.

Firstly it's very difficult to select a greatest if all time male player.
As opposed to cricket where there is a clear absolute greatest of all time, Don Bradman, tennis does not quite have that stand out.

Also how do we judge A GOAT? Besides today's media obsession with making current things the greatest of all time. But be that as it may, how to judge tennis greatness?

Is it win, loss, head to heads, victories in major tournaments, rankings?

I think it's fair to say in tennis the standard bearer is grand slams and then add to it actual calendar grand slams.

On that standard we have two stand outs:

• Federer on 19 and Nadal on 16

So that's a starting point. Then I'd throw something else in, actual calendar grand slams.

We have Don Budge and our very own Rod Laver.

Rod Laver has TWO full grand slams.

And that counts big time. Not only that, Laver won a grand slam in the amateur era and one grand slam in the open era. He also missed some years because of that kerfuffle between those eras.

Now that means 3 players could be considered, and should be. I'd leave Bjorn Borg out (just) because he curtailed his own career and the US Open record quirk of his means he just can't be best of all time. Same eg Sampras as he never won the French Open. To be the greatest you should be doing everything or you're lacking something.

Federer v Nadal have battled in 9 grand slam finals with the score:
Nadal 6 v 3 Federer.
The break down is:

French Nadal 4 - 0 Federer; Wimbledon Nadal 1 - 2 Federer; US Nadal 1 - 1 Federer; No Australian finals match up.

And how do we account for the excellence and brilliance of Nadal on clay?

So looking at everything I'd have Rod Laver as the best player overall as the two grand slams are too strong to be ignored.

Then the fight between Federer and Nadal I'd leave to others. Though I'd have Federer overall the better and Nadal the best ever on clay.

One point though, I don't hold the argument that Federer didn't beat much in the finals, you play who you play. And 19 grand slam wins means "luck" of the draw can't be a reason. 19 wins is way too much.

Excellent discussion.

The other point to note is if we are to go with the best tennis player of all time and we use grand slams as the sole metric then it has to be Margaret Court. 64 grand slam titles,24 in singles. Dominated in a big way.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

The other point to note is if we are to go with the best tennis player of all time and we use grand slams as the sole metric then it has to be Margaret Court. 64 grand slam titles,24 in singles. Dominated in a big way.

She was an absolute super star!
The doubles and mixed doubles are really just window dressing, very nice but not essential.

 

[WalterBlaknWhte]

Also worth considering who wins if playing at their absolute peak.

Sampras was impressive as was McEnroe. Both had to beat an array of champions. Players like Borg with modern racquets and weight training would also have taken precision games to a new level.

Nadal is under-rated as a player and a bloke. Read an article a few years back that said other players like him more than Federer, that he cares more about his fellow player and their broad welfare.

But, if I had to choose 1 player to play for my life against anyone: Federer (Nadal on clay).

 

[ZEV]

magpies42

And how do we account for the excellence and brilliance of Nadal on clay?

Poly strings

 

[Knightmare]

Still to be decided with Federer still playing, Nadal still playing and Djokovic still playing.

Roger Federer, Raphael Nadal, Pete Sampras and Novak Djokovic are those four I'd have in the conversation, probably in that order at this stage.

Nadal may still, injuries permitting catch or maybe even surpass Roger. Maybe Novak if he gets things together again could enter that conversation - still more than capable of winning more Grand Slams.

--
I think overall we've got different players who on a different surface in their times who should be considered the best.

Roger is the best at Wimbledon, Novak has been incredible on hard courts, then Nadal historically in clay is undoubtedly the greatest ever.

Best all-court? I'd go Roger. Sampras could never win the French Open, Nadal has done great in France but not as well at other slams and Novak does great in Australia but otherwise doesn't have that same spread of slam wins at this point to be as highly regarded as an all surface player.

 

[Schraderbrau]

boris Becker obviously

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Still to be decided with Federer still playing, Nadal still playing and Djokovic still playing.

Roger Federer, Raphael Nadal, Pete Sampras and Novak Djokovic are those four I'd have in the conversation, probably in that order at this stage.

Nadal may still, injuries permitting catch or maybe even surpass Roger. Maybe Novak if he gets things together again could enter that conversation - still more than capable of winning more Grand Slams.

--
I think overall we've got different players who on a different surface in their times who should be considered the best.

Roger is the best at Wimbledon, Novak has been incredible on hard courts, then Nadal historically in clay is undoubtedly the greatest ever.

Best all-court? I'd go Roger. Sampras could never win the French Open, Nadal has done great in France but not as well at other slams and Novak does great in Australia but otherwise doesn't have that same spread of slam wins at this point to be as highly regarded as an all surface player.

No Rod Laver?

Two grand slams is such a definitive marker that to be he must be in any conversation of best ever.

Pete Sampras, just no for me. His lack of significant French Open results means he can not be the greatest ever, if you can't win on various surfaces I'm afraid you just get marked down.

(His French Open saga yielded only one semi final appearance, 1996. That's just way too poor a record to gave him discussed as a greatest ever.)

One thing I'd say is pretty certain, Rafa Nadal is the greatest ever clay court player. Peerless on that surface.
Made the French Open his own play ground.

 

[magpies42]

Still to be decided with Federer still playing, Nadal still playing and Djokovic still playing.

Roger Federer, Raphael Nadal, Pete Sampras and Novak Djokovic are those four I'd have in the conversation, probably in that order at this stage.

Nadal may still, injuries permitting catch or maybe even surpass Roger. Maybe Novak if he gets things together again could enter that conversation - still more than capable of winning more Grand Slams.

--
I think overall we've got different players who on a different surface in their times who should be considered the best.

Roger is the best at Wimbledon, Novak has been incredible on hard courts, then Nadal historically in clay is undoubtedly the greatest ever.

Best all-court? I'd go Roger. Sampras could never win the French Open, Nadal has done great in France but not as well at other slams and Novak does great in Australia but otherwise doesn't have that same spread of slam wins at this point to be as highly regarded as an all surface player.

I tend to agree with it being undecided at this stage. What irritates me is the automatic Federer selection when it’s not clear cut.

 

[Mukesh]

There’s only ever one answer to this question... The Rocket..

 

[Saintly Viewed]

There’s only ever one answer to this question... The Rocket..

Amazing career in an era of greats.
And all amongst the turbulence of amateur becoming professional

 

[Mukesh]

Amazing career in an era of greats.
And all amongst the turbulence of amateur becoming professional

And did it all with total class and poise....

 

[Knightmare]

No Rod Laver?

Two grand slams is such a definitive marker that to be he must be in any conversation of best ever.

Pete Sampras, just no for me. His lack of significant French Open results means he can not be the greatest ever, if you can't win on various surfaces I'm afraid you just get marked down.

(His French Open saga yielded only one semi final appearance, 1996. That's just way too poor a record to gave him discussed as a greatest ever.)

One thing I'd say is pretty certain, Rafa Nadal is the greatest ever clay court player. Peerless on that surface.
Made the French Open his own play ground.

I agree with you that Sampras isn't the man. Federer and Nadal both have passed him by on grand slam wins, even competing against one another (and Novak) during the greatest era of tennis play. Having those three playing at the same time is incredible, as they're each in tennis terms really generational talents. We've been so fortunate in that regard.

I also agree with you that Nadal is without peer on clay. Maybe part of that is today's premier players aren't as comfortable on the surface, but looking through any names historically, there just isn't anyone who has won as decisively as often as he has on the surface. His record is incredible.

As for Rod Laver. I find his case harder to make, though he deserves to be in the conversation. Played with much worse equipment. Played during an era where he didn't have to go past Roger, Rapha and Novak to win. While I've watched tape of him - and he has the all court game - could hit the heck out of the ball with great placement and covered the court. I find it hard to make a case for him when talking about the more modern tennis players, even with updated equipment and assumed comfort with the equipment of a 171cm guy to be able to beat today's champions. My feel for his ability is - his play is something if Federer were 171cm, that's roughly who he would be. And with the increased height (giving the servers of today a great advantage), power, physicality and athletic ability of today's tennis players. I think he'd lose head-to-head against any of those I rated in my top four.

Laver, unless there is someone I've forgotten would probably be my number five all time. Before Sampras and pre 90s he's my top all time tennis player.

I tend to agree with it being undecided at this stage. What irritates me is the automatic Federer selection when it’s not clear cut.

They're still playing, so that does make it difficult. Maybe Roger wins another 2-3 Grand Slams for all we know?

Rapha is 31 and Novak is 30, so they can still pile up more grand slam wins, particularly with no young player looking ready to pass them by yet, or at least if they have the lasting power Roger has had.

 

[Mukesh]

I agree with you that Sampras isn't the man. Federer and Nadal both have passed him by on grand slam wins, even competing against one another (and Novak) during the greatest era of tennis play. Having those three playing at the same time is incredible, as they're each in tennis terms really generational talents. We've been so fortunate in that regard.

I also agree with you that Nadal is without peer on clay. Maybe part of that is today's premier players aren't as comfortable on the surface, but looking through any names historically, there just isn't anyone who has won as decisively as often as he has on the surface. His record is incredible.

As for Rod Laver. I find his case harder to make, though he deserves to be in the conversation. Played with much worse equipment. Played during an era where he didn't have to go past Roger, Rapha and Novak to win. While I've watched tape of him - and he has the all court game - could hit the heck out of the ball with great placement and covered the court. I find it hard to make a case for him when talking about the more modern tennis players, even with updated equipment and assumed comfort with the equipment of a 171cm guy to be able to beat today's champions. My feel for his ability is - his play is something if Federer were 171cm, that's roughly who he would be. And with the increased height (giving the servers of today a great advantage), power, physicality and athletic ability of today's tennis players. I think he'd lose head-to-head against any of those I rated in my top four.

Laver, unless there is someone I've forgotten would probably be my number five all time. Before Sampras and pre 90s he's my top all time tennis player.



They're still playing, so that does make it difficult. Maybe Roger wins another 2-3 Grand Slams for all we know?

Rapha is 31 and Novak is 30, so they can still pile up more grand slam wins, particularly with no young player looking ready to pass them by yet, or at least if they have the lasting power Roger has had.

You're missing the point... and it's got nothing to do with records or even logic... for some of us Rod Laver will always be the greatest tennis player of all time... and Pete Sampras ? he's really not in contention...

 

[Saintly Viewed]

I agree with you that Sampras isn't the man. Federer and Nadal both have passed him by on grand slam wins, even competing against one another (and Novak) during the greatest era of tennis play. Having those three playing at the same time is incredible, as they're each in tennis terms really generational talents. We've been so fortunate in that regard.

I also agree with you that Nadal is without peer on clay. Maybe part of that is today's premier players aren't as comfortable on the surface, but looking through any names historically, there just isn't anyone who has won as decisively as often as he has on the surface. His record is incredible.

As for Rod Laver. I find his case harder to make, though he deserves to be in the conversation. Played with much worse equipment. Played during an era where he didn't have to go past Roger, Rapha and Novak to win. While I've watched tape of him - and he has the all court game - could hit the heck out of the ball with great placement and covered the court. I find it hard to make a case for him when talking about the more modern tennis players, even with updated equipment and assumed comfort with the equipment of a 171cm guy to be able to beat today's champions. My feel for his ability is - his play is something if Federer were 171cm, that's roughly who he would be. And with the increased height (giving the servers of today a great advantage), power, physicality and athletic ability of today's tennis players. I think he'd lose head-to-head against any of those I rated in my top four.

Laver, unless there is someone I've forgotten would probably be my number five all time. Before Sampras and pre 90s he's my top all time tennis player.



They're still playing, so that does make it difficult. Maybe Roger wins another 2-3 Grand Slams for all we know?

Rapha is 31 and Novak is 30, so they can still pile up more grand slam wins, particularly with no young player looking ready to pass them by yet, or at least if they have the lasting power Roger has had.

Such a great articulated post.

My only "thing that I do" in such situations is "convert" each era of player to be "equivalent" to each era.
Example players are taller now. Equipment different etc.
So I just make the assumption that all players are using equivalent equipment, equivalent training, equivalent in human anatomy (each growing generation is standardised if you like) and then make some sort of call. Best I think we can do.

Same in football. The rucks are so much taller these days. As our generation has grown overall I'd suggest.

We are definitely in a wonderful era, I think it's meant to be enjoyed.

(And who is the best female player? Now that is an even more difficult essay I'd suggest.)

 

[Knightmare]

Such a great articulated post.

My only "thing that I do" in such situations is "convert" each era of player to be "equivalent" to each era.
Example players are taller now. Equipment different etc.
So I just make the assumption that all players are using equivalent equipment, equivalent training, equivalent in human anatomy (each growing generation is standardised if you like) and then make some sort of call. Best I think we can do.

Same in football. The rucks are so much taller these days. As our generation has grown overall I'd suggest.

We are definitely in a wonderful era, I think it's meant to be enjoyed.

(And who is the best female player? Now that is an even more difficult essay I'd suggest.)

It's interesting comparing players of different generations and the many ways people do. It's an imperfect science because they didn't play against each-other, and it's not possible to accurately compare, so a lot will come down to opinions, maybe biases. I tend not to subscribe to the same logic on a by generation basis - pretending Rod Laver is 14cm taller to even things up and make him more comparable against today's players.

The reason I'm of this view is Wilt Chamberlain. You're completely right that with each generation. We get taller. Sports science is improving. Diets are improving. There are so many factors that allow today's athletes and sportpeople to match up favourably against those of yesteryear. Wilt is that historical exception who breaks all those rules. He had the height (taller than 7'1 without shoes), he was stronger than anyone in the history of the NBA - he would bully Shaq and deny him position in the post completely. His athleticism is also greater than present players - he jumps higher and runs faster than LeBron James, and the guy is 7'1! From a skill standpoint, he embarrasses modern players. He hit fade-away jumps as easily as Dirk and there is video evidence of him hitting x6 hook shots from three point range consecutive. Wilt if he was to be featured on offence today could for a team be a 35ppg, 15rpg and 5bpg player per 36min and with his conditioning, he could play all 48 minutes if he wanted to. He's embarrass anyone playing today, or from any generation. It's hard in the next 50 years to think there will be anyone who matches up favourably to Wilt in all that many areas, even understanding how things are improving.

So while I could pretend Rod was 185cm, he was really 171cm and as sweet as his shot-making was. It's hard to see him holding serve or producing enough aces against Novak or Rapha to beat any of those guys. Sometimes there are guys from particular generations who are that special as I believe Wilt is, where it just doesn't matter which generation he plays, he's still that much better that anyone. Rod was special, but for mine, not in the same way I believe Wilt was where there just isn't anyone in his conversation in any generation.

--
As for females.

I haven't followed as closely and I'm too young to really know how strong a lot of those greats were, and haven't spent time studying the footage.

Margaret Court, Serena Williams, Steffi Graf and Martina Navratilova would be my shortlist. Graf and Navratilova get extra credits having to play each other a lot over the span and taking Grand Slams off of one another. Serena can keep winning Grand Slams, so that's an unknown. Maybe she wins another 1-2?

Having not seen enough of the others, it's hard to conceive any other in the women's historically matching up with Serena. She's just so powerful. But I'll defer to others who know more on/have seen more of the others.

 

[Knightmare]

You're missing the point... and it's got nothing to do with records or even logic... for some of us Rod Laver will always be the greatest tennis player of all time... and Pete Sampras ? he's really not in contention...

I might be watching too much Jim Courier commentary perhaps to have Pete in that conversation.

The more I think about his number of wins and considering how much weaker the competition was when he played. The more I agree with you on Sampras.

It's a shame when Laver played that there weren't grand slams from 63-67. It's interesting to speculate how many grand slams he may have won. Could he have won 25? Rather than the 11 he actually won (in singles)? He's probably have the all-time Grand Slam record. I'm willing to concede that much.

Though it would be just as easy to argue that if Novak wasn't playing in this era, Federer would have in excess of 25 Grand Slam wins, and if there was no Rapha or Noval either, he would in all likelihood have won 35+ Grand Slams.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

It's interesting comparing players of different generations and the many ways people do. It's an imperfect science because they didn't play against each-other, and it's not possible to accurately compare, so a lot will come down to opinions, maybe biases. I tend not to subscribe to the same logic on a by generation basis - pretending Rod Laver is 14cm taller to even things up and make him more comparable against today's players.

The reason I'm of this view is Wilt Chamberlain. You're completely right that with each generation. We get taller. Sports science is improving. Diets are improving. There are so many factors that allow today's athletes and sportpeople to match up favourably against those of yesteryear. Wilt is that historical exception who breaks all those rules. He had the height (taller than 7'1 without shoes), he was stronger than anyone in the history of the NBA - he would bully Shaq and deny him position in the post completely. His athleticism is also greater than present players - he jumps higher and runs faster than LeBron James, and the guy is 7'1! From a skill standpoint, he embarrasses modern players. He hit fade-away jumps as easily as Dirk and there is video evidence of him hitting x6 hook shots from three point range consecutive. Wilt if he was to be featured on offence today could for a team be a 35ppg, 15rpg and 5bpg player per 36min and with his conditioning, he could play all 48 minutes if he wanted to. He's embarrass anyone playing today, or from any generation. It's hard in the next 50 years to think there will be anyone who matches up favourably to Wilt in all that many areas, even understanding how things are improving.

So while I could pretend Rod was 185cm, he was really 171cm and as sweet as his shot-making was. It's hard to see him holding serve or producing enough aces against Novak or Rapha to beat any of those guys. Sometimes there are guys from particular generations who are that special as I believe Wilt is, where it just doesn't matter which generation he plays, he's still that much better that anyone. Rod was special, but for mine, not in the same way I believe Wilt was where there just isn't anyone in his conversation in any generation.

--
As for females.

I haven't followed as closely and I'm too young to really know how strong a lot of those greats were, and haven't spent time studying the footage.

Margaret Court, Serena Williams, Steffi Graf and Martina Navratilova would be my shortlist. Graf and Navratilova get extra credits having to play each other a lot over the span and taking Grand Slams off of one another. Serena can keep winning Grand Slams, so that's an unknown. Maybe she wins another 1-2?

Having not seen enough of the others, it's hard to conceive any other in the women's historically matching up with Serena. She's just so powerful. But I'll defer to d others who know more on/have seen more of the others.

Wilt was an outlier.
As Bradman was. Can’t compare him to anyone.

And of course Wilt had another record doubt anyone could ever beat. Hmmm I did the math once. On a 28 year time table, he’d basically only get about 8 days off a year assuming he’s accumulating every day. That’s some scoring.

Never known to be in a serious relationship, he basically just liked picking up. Only 63 when he died, of heart failure.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

It's funny how era comparing always ends up with someone recent.

I think the best of any sport will be the best in 20 yrs time, oh shit I just realised that will be redundant in time too.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

It's funny how era comparing always ends up with someone recent.

I think the best of any sport will be the best in 20 yrs time, oh shit I just realised that will be redundant in time too.

That is a pattern yes.
It was true however in Bradmans time with Bradman

 

[Knightmare]

It's funny how era comparing always ends up with someone recent.

I think the best of any sport will be the best in 20 yrs time, oh shit I just realised that will be redundant in time too.

Is it a recency bias in tennis? Or are the players to today actually better?

Going through my own personal lists for the sports I follow closely.

Thinking about my top AFL footballers ever. Ablett Jr is the only current player I'd have top 10 with Nathan Buckley and Leigh Matthews two I rate ahead of him.

When I think greatest basketball players ever. The only current player I'd have inside my top 10 at the moment is LeBron and he'd only just fit in at number 5.

Chess - Magnus Carlsen is the only current chess player I'd regard top 5 all time - with Gary Kasparov, Bobby Fischer, Jose Raul Capablance and Paul Morphy in no particular order those top guys.

Tennis is the only sport I look at as being in that golden period right now. Once Federer, Nadal and Djokovic leave the game, I'm not seeing any next transcendent talent on that same level. Kyrios has that kind of talent to be transcendent if he wanted to be, but is he likely to achieve that same level of tennis over a sustained period? He'd have to prove it, but I don't see him having the drive to achieve that kind of greatness. Zverev will win Grand Slams but I'm not convinced he even reaches the quality of tennis Djokovic has played over the last 10 years, Thiem can win the French Open as a really good clay courter, but he's not Rapha. Dimitrov can win Grand Slams, but he's a poor man's Federer and always will be and would be looking to become the tennis equivalent of what Kobe Bryant was in modelling his game around Michael Jordan.

Tennis I expect in five years time once Federer, Nadal and probably Djokovic are finished will be of a far reduced standard up the pointy end. It's going to take a significant upswing of new talent coming through the development pathways until we see another era like it. We may not see anything like it in the next 50 years. Or maybe in 10 years time we see some LeBron James-like height/size/athleticism level athletes who suddenly get drawn to tennis and take the game to another level entirely. That probably is what the game would need to surpass what we've seen these past 10 years.

 

[magpies42]

Surely Pete Sampras can’t be considered, he had no backhand...

 

[Obese Arachnid]

Is it a recency bias in tennis? Or are the players to today actually better?

Going through my own personal lists for the sports I follow closely.

Thinking about my top AFL footballers ever. Ablett Jr is the only current player I'd have top 10 with Nathan Buckley and Leigh Matthews two I rate ahead of him.

When I think greatest basketball players ever. The only current player I'd have inside my top 10 at the moment is LeBron and he'd only just fit in at number 5.

Chess - Magnus Carlsen is the only current chess player I'd regard top 5 all time - with Gary Kasparov, Bobby Fischer, Jose Raul Capablance and Paul Morphy in no particular order those top guys.

Tennis is the only sport I look at as being in that golden period right now. Once Federer, Nadal and Djokovic leave the game, I'm not seeing any next transcendent talent on that same level. Kyrios has that kind of talent to be transcendent if he wanted to be, but is he likely to achieve that same level of tennis over a sustained period? He'd have to prove it, but I don't see him having the drive to achieve that kind of greatness. Zverev will win Grand Slams but I'm not convinced he even reaches the quality of tennis Djokovic has played over the last 10 years, Thiem can win the French Open as a really good clay courter, but he's not Rapha. Dimitrov can win Grand Slams, but he's a poor man's Federer and always will be and would be looking to become the tennis equivalent of what Kobe Bryant was in modelling his game around Michael Jordan.

Tennis I expect in five years time once Federer, Nadal and probably Djokovic are finished will be of a far reduced standard up the pointy end. It's going to take a significant upswing of new talent coming through the development pathways until we see another era like it. We may not see anything like it in the next 50 years. Or maybe in 10 years time we see some LeBron James-like height/size/athleticism level athletes who suddenly get drawn to tennis and take the game to another level entirely. That probably is what the game would need to surpass what we've seen these past 10 years.

It's just a power baseline game now.

It's boring for mine, I actually like watching doubles more, seems to be more serve & volley, drop shots, lobs etc, the full facet of what tennis is/should be.