This is a fascinating grouping, because they all overlapped playing days in sequence. Laver played Borg (who was a teenager), Borg played McEnroe, Mac played Sampras, and Sampras played Federer.. When you consider that Laver mentions Gonzalez & Hoad, and they are all discussing Federer, there's about 70 years worth of tennis knowledge on display here.
did you know Mac had such RESPECT for Borg, Mac never argued once in a match he had with him - not one time did he go overboard with an official - it was out of RESPECT and ADMIRATION towards Borg - that is why they remained such great friends even today
@@sall4090roughcuts yes. in front of connors or any other player, Mac was such unrespectfull, and face to Borg, no word, no bad humor. He respected him, and he event told one day that before Wimbledon 1980/1981 he had been in fact motivated by the challenge to beat borg one day ..
I would say Federer is one of the greats in tennis. This group here are all greats. Tennis is such a wonderful sport. Such great champions over the many years.
Laver mentions the name 'Hoad' in this interview. Many today would never have heard of Lew Hoad. Many good judges consider him one of the greatest of all time. Laver played Hoad 17 times before he finally beat him. Had Hoad not turned pro like Gonzales would have won many more Grand Slam titles.
My two main tennis coaches told me back in 89 that Lew Hoad was the greatest player of all time. One of those coaches had played against Roy Emerson and Rod Laver. I wonder if he was ever on the court with Hoad.
I have read a few times that Hoad finally turned pro, after turning down the offer a few times, because he was already feeling the effects of the back trouble that finally ended his career. Turning pro was his chance to make some good money before the back trouble stopped him for good. So I certainly feel Laver, who said he himself improved immeasurably after joining the pros, would have handled Hoad.
Lew Hoad at his best was definitely one of the greatest male tennis players of all-time. But as Jack Kramer accurately pointed out in his great autobiography, "The Game: My 40 Years in Tennis", the problem with Hoad was the same as that with Ellsworth Vines - he was inconsistent because he went for winners way too often instead of playing percentage tennis and waiting for the right opportunity to go for a winner! Hoad sadly made the exceedingly foolish mistake early in his tennis career of placing a 50 pound weight on his back while doing pushups and damaged his back which prevented him from winning more tournaments (especially major tournaments)!
@@michaelbarlow6610 out of any " goat" it should be much more intresting to determinate (another debate !!! :))) ) who did improve the game. some introducing serve and volley ?? some introducing lift ?? ... slice ??? kick ?? drop ?? .... :)
McEnroe, just let it go. This GOAT talk is been going on for years. Who gives a shit. Hes good, Sampras is good, Borg is good. That's it. Enjoy the show
@@idrisgroken2991 ? U can argue fed bc he has more majors, but brass tax breaking it down Djok is better tennis player than Fed -- Djok is actually terrible matchup for Fed. Fed cannot be considered tru #1 bc he has severe losing records to Nadal and Djok. Love Fed though -- RF Houston 03 Nov Final against Agassi, Fed USO 04 against Hewitt #unreal
People don't seem to understand the magnitude of what Rod Laver has acomplished. He won all majors both in 1962 and 1969. So we could infere that if he was allowed to play in between those years he could have won a total of 25 slams at least. There's a resson why Federer chose to call the tournement Laver Cup. He's the greatest in my book.
Very difficult to compare. Borg never played Australian Open, for instance, and still won so many Grand Slams in a few years. Laver won two complete Grand Slams despite not playing Grand Slams for many years.
oh man you gotta love McEnroe...at least NOW. I hated him when he'd play Borg, but it made for such good drama. Now that i'm not a young naive lad, I can see how their rivalry made them so good for the sport (Borg and McEnroe) and his "temper" was a pretty cool thing after all!
I wish there was more indoor court play of the older generations. You can really see their game shine, they, and including everyone probably, look much better when playing on an indoor court, with consistent bounces.
The Rafa and Roger Era came at the perfect moment: the Age of the Internet. In each Era, there will be champions. We only call these two the greatest because we’ve got to experience them grow and rise in a revolutionary new-age way. But as they fall, new ones will rise…
what a hell you are talking about??? Where is Djokovic in your comment ??? He got all important numbers in tennis and 3 from above gentlemen has label him (novak) as the goat. I always put Murray amoung the 3 greats
Roger Federer's style of playing is what sets him apart from the rest in history. His records may eventually be broken (most records do get broken) but nobody can come close to replicating his graceful, liquid like movement on court. Just like his idol Sampras, he never had to grunt his way through a 5 set match. The forehand - the best ever when it comes to hitting clean winners on either wing, the backhand serene and majestic, the serve - the most accurate and dependable ever, the touch at the net as good as any serve and volley master of the past, he can hit any shot from anywhere (tweeners, dunks, half volleys from the baseline, taking balls in the air off the forehand and backhand, lob Ivo Karlovic) and still make it look so easy and graceful. Compare that with some players who try to beat the crap out of the ball or throw in thousands of RPMs on high moonballs or depend on doing some gymnastic like splits or fake an injury when your opponent is on top. They are all just pretenders and can never be a true champion like Roger or Pete before him. Roger's style of play is not limited to any surface, he is the best ever on grass and hard courts and only, I repeat, only Nadal, is better than him on clay. And he did all of this with possibly the smallest racket on tour for a long period. Thousands of rpm's on the ball, doing splits are all fascinating but when it comes to playing with grace and style there's Roger and then there's the rest.
jenni431 I never really understand this point, why does the wake a player plays decide they are the best ever? I feel that's completely subjective depending on what you look for and many players over history have had great all round games. I think the reason Roger is the best ever is due to what he has achieved. The only person to really challenge as Pete said is rod laver. If he had been competing for longer who's to say what he could have achieved
Sampras is the best grass-court player,.,. Everybody know`s that,.,. Federer won his slams in a weak era of top players. Sampras beat all the greats. Without a doubt, the best fast-court player,., Without a doubt !!
Amongst the 4: Bjorn is actually the greatest. He was like a machine. No emotion, no fatigue, no expression only result. Rod following just behind Bjorn. John and Pete follow him close behind.
if you look in tennis ONLY for stats...that mabe be true...BUT! IF YOURE looking for human emotions ...beauty in sport of tennis....you know the answer....Cheers
@y11971alex It really was an asinine question. Mac pushed them...trying to get a "moment"....but...c'mon...I thought Pete's answer was great. He didn't bow into the pressure of the moment, but paid proper tribute to all the greats. How can you stand next to a man who won TWO grand slams, and say Federer is the greatest???
As a big Roger fan, I have to disagree with your claim. Did you ever see Laver? Pat Cash? Edberg? Rafter? Even Pete Sampras? no question Roger is by far the best serve and volley player of his era and the best overall player in history but if we go to something as specific as serve and volley, there are worthy contenders for the title of "best ever".
Roger the best serve and volley player of his era? That made me laugh till I cried. The Australian players of the 60s were the greatest exponents of serve volley, and I well remember Fred Stolle saying how he couldn't believe a player, Federer, could get to number 1 with such poor volleying skills.
Pete absolutely has a very good point. In my opinion, having the most Major tournament wins doesn’t make you the goat. By that logic Michael Jordan isn’t the goat of basketball, but I think we can all agree that he is better at basket than pretty much anyone from any era. Let’s not forget that Pete Sampras was the most dominant player in history, and in the most talented era in history, much like Jordan. I think Sampras is the only player in this group that could be dropped into any era of tennis in his prime, and he would still dominate. For that reason, I think Sampras is goat.
@Jlymansackhead, I agree with everything you say, and Sampras would be my GOAT, except I feel Laver's TWO calendar year Grand Slams, SEVEN YEARS apart, put him in a class apart.
interestingly the main argument against Jordan is the same as the main argument as Sampras: they were not pushed by a great rival. The other greats of their sports played before and after them. This is not *technically* true of Jordan, whose career overlapped Bird and Magic...then again, he never won while those two were in their prime.
The reality is, as Bud Collins accurately pointed out to Charlie Rose many years ago on the "Charlie Rose" show on PBS, you can only definitively say that a player was the best of his or her era. That's all you can say accurately. It is impossible, for a variety of reasons, to determine definitively which players are the greatest male and female tennis players in history because, obviously, you can't bring together in the same era all of the greatest players of all-time with them all at the very peak of their respective primes, have them play with the same equipment, and have them play a large enough number of matches against each other on the various surfaces at the 4 major tournaments to determine which male and female player are the greatest in history! It is unfortunate that Bud Collins buckled under to the pressure that Charlie Rose put on him when Rose was unsatisfied with Collins' accurate statement that you can only definitively say that a player was the best of his or her era, and responded after Rose asked him the hypothetical question if Federer were to win the French Open and the Grand Slam would Collins then consider Federer to be the greatest male player of all-time and Bud Collins unfortunately responded, "Yes I will tip my hat and say Roger you're the best of all time".
LOL thx ! ;) for me the only goat is djokovic ... for one clear and obvious reason : he can clearly explain ( like you did) that there is no goat ;) note, now , many papers explains there is no goat ( after the fedal failure ^^^) It is the Djokovic's legacy :)
BTW if we count all Laver's majors, not just his amateur or open era slams, but pro majors as well he played from '62 till '69 after he was banned from participating in amateur slams, then he has 19 majors and not just mere 11! I always thought this number does more justice to Laver's achievements than 11 (no offense to Borg haha), so while i do understand that those pro slams during amateur era aren't equal to grand slams in any era, one should understand that even with reduced draws these were the most prestigious tournaments tennis had to offer, so it's not like it's Laver's fault that open era of tennis didn't kick in earlier in 62' or something, playing and winning pro slams was much better back then than playing and winning in the field full of talentless amateurs, like Emerson did! By playing pro slams Laver had to face best of the best era had to offer and often received quite a beating from his compatriot Rosewall, but would later bounce back in their h2h closer to the 2nd half of the 60's! Laver's 8 pro slams are just as legit as his 11 grand slams and i would argue they even have more weight than the 6 amateur slams he has won prior to 62'...
Neither did this comment, nor saying Player X is the greatest ever because we never know who will dominate the sport in the future (21-25 definitely seems attainable to those who have the gifts and put in the work to dominate year in year out). Imo weird that the goat debate is Always mentioned, every tournament- a pedestal that is more opinion than fact. The only consensus seems to be slam count. Nobody remembers every moment of every slam, who had easier draws, top peak ability, comebacks, bitter defeats (not that that takes one out of contention from greatest of an era, all players have had weird slam losses) so at the end of the day, it's mostly just a number. I mean, just enjoying one's favorite players legacy/ the epic matches & rivalries seems to be more fun and fulfilling than trying to race to the finish and see who is on top for slam count (could indeed end tie for all we know...) For sure imo at this point in time it seems a case can be made for any of the 'big 3', even if perhaps they doped some, they had all the money in the world and then some, yet still beat up their bodies and laid it all on the line for so many years. So many legends produced from tennis, crazy (maybe like with iconic rockstars, people take them for granted while they are at their peak & maybe there will be several decades without such presences/ talents...)
Laver, Borg and Sampras are the old-3, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are the new-3! Always thought it's very fitting, given how old-3 finished their careers within 11-19 slam range, while the new-3 all went 20+! Haha...
So so many problems. How do you define best, most big titles won, best longetivity at the top, most time at number 1. Time will likely still remember select finals/ moments. The consensus still seems to largely be "on paper Djokovic has the records, but Federer/ Nadal made tennis" & whoever is your favorite is fine no matter if they won slams or not. So many solid masterful tennis players unfortunately get forgotten by most under the weight of the silly goat debate. Its subjective, people will still defend their favorites for being the best at something because humans are naturally biased & try to defend themselves logically
@DestroyerAlexandros Federer doesn't have such rivals? Nadal has beaten him 17 out of 25 times and has 10 slams by the age of 25. I know you made that comment a year ago but I would've called it stupid then too.
AT THEIR BEST/PEAK, Federer- he was scary good , not just pretty, Also lets face it, sure hard and rosewall were greta players, but it was a different game.Its MUCH more fast powerful competative now, Just look as serve pace. (Tho no tie breakers in those days) , Borg could not win at US Open (tho he came close many times, just as Sampras didnt have a clay game . Lets break it down Laver was clearly the most versatile player-he won at elast two of every grand slam and two slams. Nasal, Fed and Borg have the greatest winning %, Rafa edging the other two. As for Lew hard-you think he was better than Rafa or Joker ? Federer had to beat consistently better players (starting with Sampras at Wimbledon when he was 19 and Sampras played a great game) than rosewall and Hoad, or Gonzales on clay. Hoad was only really great for two years, and his 58% winning percentage pales in comparison with any of the above 77-83 %....would have loved to see what the rocket could do with a modern mid sized racquet in his left hand
@sosdkny to say federers game is just or mainly baseline is ignorance, he has it all even his so called weak backhand is better that any of the guys outsude the top 7, his forehand is the greatest ever by a long way. his ballance elligance speed fitness, my friend told me to night he has still to see him sweat and hes 30 now, remarkable. about nadal, hes a credit to tennis brilliant player but he is not on the fed, pete or laver standard. sorry dont mean to be personal just very passionate.
As far a s "choking" everyone does it at some point int heir careers. Look at Nadal vs Davydenko in Diha 2010. After a 6-0 first set and several match points in favor, ended up losing the match against the guy he can't beat on hard surfaces... or vs Verdasco in Madrid this year... 5-2 in the this with his serve, 15-0 and an easy smash. missed it, choked and lost 5 games in a row and the match. Djoko lost the RG final with a double fault after being a break up in the 4th. So??
I do think what Novak’s done over the past 10 years, winning the majors, being consistent . . . to me it is a clear sign that he is the greatest of all time." Pete Sampras
after Wimbledon 2024 final we can safly say there is No Goat because if Alcaraz came 10 years ago Novak would never win a Wimbledon because Alcarqz would dominate over him 😊
@@fraerot YES in my opinion we will never see a Goat in tennis or any sport because it always depends If Novak played during Sampras era maybe Novak would never win a slam If Sampras played in Rogers era Sampras would maybe never win a slam So a Goat is just about an accomplishments in your period of time because after that time or before that time there could be a player that would be your Kriptonyte stopping you from achieving greatness like Wawrinka Wawrinka dominated over Novak the last 10 years so if Wawrinka was younger now he would probably beat Novak in many finals but unfortunately Wawrinka is old and not so consistent to meet Novak in slams because of draw
@sosdkny dont be talking nonsense,the only advantage is the new ones are composite frame compared to wood of old,the strings are still the same gut and synthetic gut,the newer rackets are harder to control the balls with because of the much larger head size,so thats a massive disadvantage.todays players are 10,000% fitter and more athletic than the most athletic player back in the old days,i think u are so wrong,and if every great played to their absolute best federer would win,he has it all.
For me a lot of people overrate the Sampras era anyway. Not to take anything away from Sampras, but think about it. Becker and Edberg were nearly out of their primes by the time Sampras's started. Rafter only ever won 2 slams, and Agassi as great he was rarely beat prime Sampras. Most of his slams came later after Sampras had declined so Agassi should be given credit for maintaining a high level into his late 20's. Nadal will go down as a better player than Agassi no doubt.
Federer faced much weaker competition, until Nadal appeared. Sampras competed against multiple GS winners. Who did Federer win against, until 2005? Becker and Edberg were certainly not past their prime when Sampras appeared. I don't think Sampras ever beat Edberg, who beat him in the 1992 US Open final, and Becker was in a Wimbledon final later, against Sampras, so hardly past it.
Well comments on these subjects, or subject most of the time would not be worth reading ..... Because most people would have no idea what they're talking about. In Sampras era there was a lot of depth and a lot more out in the elements play, which is very taxing same with McEnroe and Borg Different balls, Different strings. Im my opinion Sampras was the greatest fast court player of all time... BUT now with Nadal one grand slam off Federer And there is a real argument for the greatest player of all time
i want that you know that I think that technology is making people stupid because or they dont understand anything or if they understand they shouldnt talk about it and dont tell why its are far away of truth and this is sure and thank you.
i want that you know that numbers dont define who is the best because all sports there are examples of competitors who have more titles but are worse than others who have less titles then it is a stupidity set the best by numbersand this is sure and thank you.
No balls or heart in clutch moments??? then how did he win 17 GS and has stayed at the top for 290 weeks, more than Rafa and the "new" Joker combined? How come he won Wimbledon at almost 31 beating Djokovic clearly and Murray, the local favorite in the final? What about his final vs Roddick in 09 or his semi vs Del Potro in the semi of the Olympics?
@sosdkny that stuff you see them taking is a sugar and fruit puree, that stuff was available to every player back when, if they wanted it, it was called a banana there was no difference, thats why u see some players like nadal use the puree and federer eat bananas. sorry to keep harping on, but i hate people who know nothing spreading horse-shit, and im sorry if i seam to be berating you i really dont mean to be.navratilova was one of the best ever,thats why we wont see her again.same with fed
federer is the one eye king in the world of blind sorry but cant even beat Nadal (second great in the arena) sampras days - at least 10 (Nadal like) mega players nearly all from hall of fame 14 grand slam out of them
@sosdkny im quite a good tennis player ive played for my country at amature level, so i can say with alot of confidance that ur the one who doesnt know ur head from your arse, unless ur on the circuit or something.(that was sarcasm) ive played somebody who played federer.
@sosdkny federer is the grestest serve volly player there vever was, he is not the greatest server tho, that goes to pete. the reason tou dont see as much of it now is because they have slowed down all courts esp wimby to make the game look better to the onlooker, slower courts means more rallies. suger thing, yes it is you get as much sugar and energy in one small tube of puree as you do if u eat half a banana and most players dont want to be eating that much in a match. every half hour
that is a very naive statement. first of all, his first gs was not amongst even the best players. people who do not know the history of the game make a huge mistake when they start using grand slam titles as the biggest criteria. in the olden days, it just was not so. first, when professional tennis started, they could not even compete in grand slams. and most of the best players did not travel to australia and/or the french. rosewall beat laver in the first 2 wct championships. this was a way bigger feat than winning a grand slam tournament. as laver mentioned, rosewall, gonzales and hoad (to a bit of a lesser extent) go right along with laver.
I think this really must come down to total grand slams. And the second decider players on equal grand slams, is masters titles won. That gives us 1)federer 2) Nadal 3) sampras 4)djokovic 5)emerson 6)laver and borg (7) tilden 8) connors, fred perry, rosewall , lendle, agassi. These are all in the top ten. I'm not sure of the number of masters won by emerson, laver, borg, tilden, connors, perry, rosewall lendle or agassi, so I've grouped them together based on grand slam titles won. The number of masters they've won will decide between players with same number of grand slam titles-nadal beats sampras to no 2, because of his superior masters titles record. This method of judging the greatest players was set up by tennis instead. The sport decided that grand slams were the main test of greatness, as all the top players are in the draw, and they are five setters, with everyone in the draw more matches to play. Laver cannot be put instead of nadal because nadal's records show him superior in every area-greatest clay court player of all time, most masters tournaments won (only recently eclipsed by dkokovic) but nadal's masters record is superior to lavers ans thats what matters. And noone can be put above federer who's 18 grand slams trumps everyone, plus federer had sampras like era of dominance at no 1, plus has further cemented his legacy by beating the most top 10 players in a grand slam in history to reach the final of the australian open at the age of 35, and then beat nadal to win it. Saying stuff like-laver could have won more if this or that didnt happen is just pointless. The fact laver didnt win them. And it is not right to credit a player as best if they haven't earnt it by winning the grand slams. I don't get marks for exams or essays if I don't do the essays. I don't turn up and say "im the greatest in the class, even though I missed loads of classes and only did 1 of the 5 essays set this year. Thats why we have grand slams- to determine greatness in the sport of tennis. Ignoring the grand slam record is ignoring tennis rules, and tennis's foundation. Federer has earned it, he won the 18 grand slams, more than any other player. And remember players are more athletic now , have better defensive skills and better fitness levels. As courts are slower you need more tools to your game than simply a fast serve and rush the net. Players now have all the shots. So winning 18 grandslams was not an easy feat. There are no weak eras. This is an invented argument which people use to try to deligimatise the success of a sportman. If you add up everyone who argues this "weak era argument" and put them all together, it would mean that every single tennis era was weak. So its a stupid argument when people argue that. Please can people stop elevating Laver further than his position in the grand slam charts. Sure he was one of the greats with 11 grand slams, and Borg was a great with 11 grand slams. And djokovic is a great with 12, as is emerson. Before federer sampras was the greatest with 14 grand slams, and an era where he dominated. However federer dominated his era even more than sampras and nadal also reached his 14 grand slams quicker than sampras did. So the previous era of players have been surpased. As comparing eras is a controverisal, complicated and largely non factual opinionated affair, we must stick with the pure science, the pure math of total grand slams won, and secondary-how many masters titles won to decide the best between players with equal number of grand slam trophies.
Shaun Humphreys I agree. Plus the fact that Federer is by far the most technically advanced and graceful player ever. They were and are all great but Federer just has it all and then some.
Borg should be higher by virtue of his 5/6 year dominance of Wimbledon and the French Open, Has anyone dominated two such contrasting surfaces like Borg did? Federer best overall.
Leaving aside the changes is racquets, balls and surfaces and looking only at how complete a player is, Borg, Connors and Lendl are nowhere near the caliber of Roger. Only Laver and to a lesser extent, Sampras. Roger is a great baseliner (like Borg, Connors and Lendl), with an incredible serve, a powerful attack game (much more so than the 3 mentioned), great volley (same point) and is the best "shot maker" since McEnroe. The difference with Sampras is Roger is a much better defender than Pete
RL was just partially right there after that WB'09 final, Federer indeed went on to win a huge 5 slam titles more coupled with 2 YEC & 13 more masters, but Federer should've stopped playing tennis a few years ago by the end of 2018 or at the beginning of 2019, as for The Rocket to have also been right about him clearly being the GOAT after his retirement. Now, it is very likely he retires as the no.3, which is mind boggling considering he has amassed 6 more slams than Pistol Pete as well as considerably more Masters, YEC and weeks at no.1, but, unlike Pete who was Open Era Goat for about 7 years after his last slam rubber, Federer shall in all probability finish his farewell slam rubber as no.3 in the Open Era Goat list, nevertheless, he was an Open Era Goat couple of years longer than Sampras, WB'09-WB'21 to WB'1999-WB'09.
He can make record after record without competition but no use , only academic interest. Three players who could beat him is Nadal, Jokovich and Murray , two are injured and Nadal , we donot know how long he will continue. He also should play selective matches to keep his winning streak as Federer did not play French open avoiding tough matches . These players use lighter rackets, 40 % less weight than old Wilson wooden Racket with large area which generates more power . Connors saw all the champions 11 wimbledon champions , clash with most of them From Laver, Rosewall , Ash , Mckenroe to Sampras and Agassi, Becker, Cash, Edberg and so on .He played my be 15 french champions and Australian champions. He used all the Rackets from wooden to day modern racket , played till 40 years.Hence Guys , Connors is the greatest and nobody stands before him. Federer is tiny before the this tennis legend , Mr.Connors. And still he plays at the age of 66 and that is the passion for the game.The comments are totally biased and very sorry to listen forgettin the other legends.
@@fritzlange7934 Sampras only beat Fed Once in an Exhibition... much as I hate to admit it, only their tour match in 01 wimbledon really counts (even tho h2h is a piss poor indicator of greatness). Everyone has their biases, people can't be completely objective when judging/ comparing players. Basically there isn't a definite goat imo if it's highly contested. Even if there was (a clear "goat"), the sport would be more boring because of it & people bringing up weird excuses like "weak era" even more. Rivals make the player too, can't have celebrated greatness if it were always a bashing, regardless of how solid competition is/was... tho in reality, no one player in history is/ was the best or greatest under all conditions
roger edgerton get over yourself federer will never be the legendary player pistol was. noones played real tennis since the early 2000s anyways. pete is still king.
roger edgerton All surfaces? That's a laugh. All the courts are the same slow crap for the protected Federer. Tennis is a slow court joke including green clay Wimbledon for the protected Big 3.
He probably was the best ever in 2009, and still was best ever untill the other day when Nadal won 21 slams at 35, coming back from the dead against Medvedev. Unfortunately Federer has always had problems playing his best tennis when it mattered the most... This is smtg that djoko and Nadal are total supreme at... So yeah, in my eyes Federer was the best ever tennis player , but he was not able to prove that when it mattered the most, especially against Novak... As it stands, Nadal is the best, and Roger and Novak are just behind... It would be ironic if when all is done and dusted, Federer had less grand slams than Nadal and Novak... And I'm afraid that is what is going to happen.
talent wise, he is the greatest. But to call him overall the greatest of all time, hell no. He is not the greatest athlete (when compared to "new" Joker and rafa for example). And he has no balls and heart in clutch moments. Novak won so many matches just cuz of his heart and guts. While Federer chokes. There is no suck thing as "luck" as many like to find excuse in. It's like when people compare Lebron to Jordan.Maybe Lebron is bigger talent, but he will never have heart and guts of Jordan.
Five years later... Federer at 36 wins his 20th GS. While Joker and Rafa struggle with injury (okay Nadal had a fantastic 2017 and will probably do phenomenal this year too).
@@ahmedisa3723 Haha crazy. It's going to be interesting to see how well Novak can hold up, this elbow injury seems more serious/persistent than anything he's had in some time. I suspect Nadal will retire very soon. Who could have foreseen the rise of Alcaraz though? It makes me excited for any new youngsters just around the corner.
It is both true and false. Federer is good by today's shitty standards, but not so good as the time when you had S&V players. He is nowhere near the elite of Mac and Edberg and also far from other solid volleyers like Sampras and Becker.
Federer, Nadal, Djokovic have never won on a true grass court at Wimbledon. All their GS titles won on slow courts. They're the best of the weak slow court era.
which led to the days of the 90's servebot and volley 2-shot "rallies" when people turned off ATP Wimbledon and more viewers watched the WTA version of all things!
This is a fascinating grouping, because they all overlapped playing days in sequence. Laver played Borg (who was a teenager), Borg played McEnroe, Mac played Sampras, and Sampras played Federer.. When you consider that Laver mentions Gonzalez & Hoad, and they are all discussing Federer, there's about 70 years worth of tennis knowledge on display here.
And Federer faced Nadal.
@MUFC what is wrong with you ?
And nadal faced djokovic
@@srkucrickk ... and Nadal faced Djokovic :)
@@Prmk1997 oups LOL sorry too obvious ;)
I love the fact that Mac and Borg are great friends outside the sport. Dont know why, but it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside :D
It's fantastic! And Mc and Boris too:)
did you know Mac had such RESPECT for Borg, Mac never argued once in a match he had with him - not one time did he go overboard with an official - it was out of RESPECT and ADMIRATION towards Borg - that is why they remained such great friends even today
@@sall4090roughcuts yes. in front of connors or any other player, Mac was such unrespectfull, and face to Borg, no word, no bad humor. He respected him, and he event told one day that before Wimbledon 1980/1981 he had been in fact motivated by the challenge to beat borg one day ..
@MUFC idiot boka
thats what smart men do. It's all business baby
these freaking four legends omg!!!
McEnroe is a bit crafty here.
If they say "yes," they would look bad.
If they say "no," they would still look bad.
Wow! 4 insanely talented tennis guys. Long live the legends
Mac in heaven.....his childhood idol and his best friend from his playing days...all together with Pete, who is making a rare appearance like that.
They are all greats. Put them all in the same era with the same equipment and rules and they would all be competitive with each other.
I would say Federer is one of the greats in tennis. This group here are all greats. Tennis is such a wonderful sport. Such great champions over the many years.
Laver mentions the name 'Hoad' in this interview. Many today would never have heard of Lew Hoad. Many good judges consider him one of the greatest of all time. Laver played Hoad 17 times before he finally beat him. Had Hoad not turned pro like Gonzales would have won many more Grand Slam titles.
My two main tennis coaches told me back in 89 that Lew Hoad was the greatest player of all time. One of those coaches had played against Roy Emerson and Rod Laver. I wonder if he was ever on the court with Hoad.
I have read a few times that Hoad finally turned pro, after turning down the offer a few times, because he was already feeling the effects of the back trouble that finally ended his career. Turning pro was his chance to make some good money before the back trouble stopped him for good. So I certainly feel Laver, who said he himself improved immeasurably after joining the pros, would have handled Hoad.
GProOAT ^^^^
Lew Hoad at his best was definitely one of the greatest male tennis players of all-time. But as Jack Kramer accurately pointed out in his great autobiography, "The Game: My 40 Years in Tennis", the problem with Hoad was the same as that with Ellsworth Vines - he was inconsistent because he went for winners way too often instead of playing percentage tennis and waiting for the right opportunity to go for a winner! Hoad sadly made the exceedingly foolish mistake early in his tennis career of placing a 50 pound weight on his back while doing pushups and damaged his back which prevented him from winning more tournaments (especially major tournaments)!
@@michaelbarlow6610 out of any " goat" it should be much more intresting to determinate (another debate !!! :))) ) who did improve the game.
some introducing serve and volley ??
some introducing lift ?? ... slice ??? kick ?? drop ?? .... :)
McEnroe, just let it go. This GOAT talk is been going on for years. Who gives a shit. Hes good, Sampras is good, Borg is good. That's it. Enjoy the show
Djokovic is the greatest tennis player of all time
@@kennethlundgren prime federer so 06 fed is goat
@@idrisgroken2991 ? U can argue fed bc he has more majors, but brass tax breaking it down Djok is better tennis player than Fed -- Djok is actually terrible matchup for Fed.
Fed cannot be considered tru #1 bc he has severe losing records to Nadal and Djok. Love Fed though -- RF Houston 03 Nov Final against Agassi, Fed USO 04 against Hewitt #unreal
@@kennethlundgren CLOWN. nole is better now, prime fed would crush him
@@kennethlundgren '' severe ''
People don't seem to understand the magnitude of what Rod Laver has acomplished. He won all majors both in 1962 and 1969.
So we could infere that if he was allowed to play in between those years he could have won a total of 25 slams at least.
There's a resson why Federer chose to call the tournement Laver Cup. He's the greatest in my book.
Very difficult to compare. Borg never played Australian Open, for instance, and still won so many Grand Slams in a few years. Laver won two complete Grand Slams despite not playing Grand Slams for many years.
I wonder how the room didn't collapse into a black hole from such an overload of greatness.
Laver 100%, you put it all together, take it all into consideration. It's rocket Rod
oh man you gotta love McEnroe...at least NOW. I hated him when he'd play Borg, but it made for such good drama. Now that i'm not a young naive lad, I can see how their rivalry made them so good for the sport (Borg and McEnroe) and his "temper" was a pretty cool thing after all!
I wish there was more indoor court play of the older generations. You can really see their game shine, they, and including everyone probably, look much better when playing on an indoor court, with consistent bounces.
great tennis legends.
The Rafa and Roger Era came at the perfect moment: the Age of the Internet. In each Era, there will be champions. We only call these two the greatest because we’ve got to experience them grow and rise in a revolutionary new-age way. But as they fall, new ones will rise…
what a hell you are talking about??? Where is Djokovic in your comment ??? He got all important numbers in tennis and 3 from above gentlemen has label him (novak) as the goat.
I always put Murray amoung the 3 greats
FED is amazing to Adapt his game and tweek his strokes and equipment
Wow. Four of my All-TimeFavorites. I met three of them and played one. I’ll take Federer.
Looking forward to seeing Roger in a couple of years among them. :)
could not be possible the presence of Jimbo due to interviewer :) Kmon john for me you number one ever :)
Roger Federer's style of playing is what sets him apart from the rest in history. His records may eventually be broken (most records do get broken) but nobody can come close to replicating his graceful, liquid like movement on court. Just like his idol Sampras, he never had to grunt his way through a 5 set match. The forehand - the best ever when it comes to hitting clean winners on either wing, the backhand serene and majestic, the serve - the most accurate and dependable ever, the touch at the net as good as any serve and volley master of the past, he can hit any shot from anywhere (tweeners, dunks, half volleys from the baseline, taking balls in the air off the forehand and backhand, lob Ivo Karlovic) and still make it look so easy and graceful. Compare that with some players who try to beat the crap out of the ball or throw in thousands of RPMs on high moonballs or depend on doing some gymnastic like splits or fake an injury when your opponent is on top. They are all just pretenders and can never be a true champion like Roger or Pete before him. Roger's style of play is not limited to any surface, he is the best ever on grass and hard courts and only, I repeat, only Nadal, is better than him on clay. And he did all of this with possibly the smallest racket on tour for a long period. Thousands of rpm's on the ball, doing splits are all fascinating but when it comes to playing with grace and style there's Roger and then there's the rest.
jenni431 I never really understand this point, why does the wake a player plays decide they are the best ever? I feel that's completely subjective depending on what you look for and many players over history have had great all round games. I think the reason Roger is the best ever is due to what he has achieved. The only person to really challenge as Pete said is rod laver. If he had been competing for longer who's to say what he could have achieved
one more thing to add, DROP ON SERVE omg...
Best comment ever. Thank you!
Sampras is the best grass-court player,.,. Everybody know`s that,.,. Federer won his slams in a weak era of top players. Sampras beat all the greats. Without a doubt, the best fast-court player,., Without a doubt !!
Many players are and have been better than Federer on clay.
Amongst the 4:
Bjorn is actually the greatest. He was like a machine. No emotion, no fatigue, no expression only result.
Rod following just behind Bjorn.
John and Pete follow him close behind.
if you look in tennis ONLY for stats...that mabe be true...BUT! IF YOURE looking for human emotions ...beauty in sport of tennis....you know the answer....Cheers
Laver showed no emotion, fatigue or expression, just results, long before Borg appeared on the scene.
@y11971alex
It really was an asinine question. Mac pushed them...trying to get a "moment"....but...c'mon...I thought Pete's answer was great. He didn't bow into the pressure of the moment, but paid proper tribute to all the greats. How can you stand next to a man who won TWO grand slams, and say Federer is the greatest???
Federer is so great. He´s so funny, he´s so serious.
When he is out of a tournament I dont care anymore who will win.
Jm Jones He's got a bit of a weak serve though.
Don yeah, his serve compared to the really good servers is kind of weak, buthas good placement andis hard to read
Talking about "when he retires" in 2009, little did they know that he is still playing 12 years later.
As a big Roger fan, I have to disagree with your claim. Did you ever see Laver? Pat Cash? Edberg? Rafter? Even Pete Sampras? no question Roger is by far the best serve and volley player of his era and the best overall player in history but if we go to something as specific as serve and volley, there are worthy contenders for the title of "best ever".
just trash your Camus books and change your belief system, it's easy if you try.
Roger the best serve and volley player of his era? That made me laugh till I cried. The Australian players of the 60s were the greatest exponents of serve volley, and I well remember Fred Stolle saying how he couldn't believe a player, Federer, could get to number 1 with such poor volleying skills.
Pete absolutely has a very good point. In my opinion, having the most Major tournament wins doesn’t make you the goat. By that logic Michael Jordan isn’t the goat of basketball, but I think we can all agree that he is better at basket than pretty much anyone from any era. Let’s not forget that Pete Sampras was the most dominant player in history, and in the most talented era in history, much like Jordan. I think Sampras is the only player in this group that could be dropped into any era of tennis in his prime, and he would still dominate. For that reason, I think Sampras is goat.
Let me guess, you are from the US. lol
@@erikdejong9728 You're argument is weak.
I agree. Sampras is the goat
@Jlymansackhead, I agree with everything you say, and Sampras would be my GOAT, except I feel Laver's TWO calendar year Grand Slams, SEVEN YEARS apart, put him in a class apart.
interestingly the main argument against Jordan is the same as the main argument as Sampras: they were not pushed by a great rival. The other greats of their sports played before and after them.
This is not *technically* true of Jordan, whose career overlapped Bird and Magic...then again, he never won while those two were in their prime.
how the times change .... Now we have the same conversation about Novak
At some point McEnroe turned into a total spaz as an interviewer but back then he was a very good one i dont know what happened.
The reality is, as Bud Collins accurately pointed out to Charlie Rose many years ago on the "Charlie Rose" show on PBS, you can only definitively say that a player was the best of his or her era. That's all you can say accurately. It is impossible, for a variety of reasons, to determine definitively which players are the greatest male and female tennis players in history because, obviously, you can't bring together in the same era all of the greatest players of all-time with them all at the very peak of their respective primes, have them play with the same equipment, and have them play a large enough number of matches against each other on the various surfaces at the 4 major tournaments to determine which male and female player are the greatest in history! It is unfortunate that Bud Collins buckled under to the pressure that Charlie Rose put on him when Rose was unsatisfied with Collins' accurate statement that you can only definitively say that a player was the best of his or her era, and responded after Rose asked him the hypothetical question if Federer were to win the French Open and the Grand Slam would Collins then consider Federer to be the greatest male player of all-time and Bud Collins unfortunately responded, "Yes I will tip my hat and say Roger you're the best of all time".
LOL thx ! ;)
for me the only goat is djokovic ... for one clear and obvious reason :
he can clearly explain ( like you did) that there is no goat ;)
note, now , many papers explains there is no goat ( after the fedal failure ^^^)
It is the Djokovic's legacy :)
These are legends but for me Jimmy Connors is the epitome of tennis, he had something special
A true competitor. Never let up on anyone.
Novak, Laver, Rafa, Roger, Pete, Bjorn are the best my favourite was Borg but he never won the US Open. Novak is the best
BTW if we count all Laver's majors, not just his amateur or open era slams, but pro majors as well he played from '62 till '69 after he was banned from participating in amateur slams, then he has 19 majors and not just mere 11! I always thought this number does more justice to Laver's achievements than 11 (no offense to Borg haha), so while i do understand that those pro slams during amateur era aren't equal to grand slams in any era, one should understand that even with reduced draws these were the most prestigious tournaments tennis had to offer, so it's not like it's Laver's fault that open era of tennis didn't kick in earlier in 62' or something, playing and winning pro slams was much better back then than playing and winning in the field full of talentless amateurs, like Emerson did! By playing pro slams Laver had to face best of the best era had to offer and often received quite a beating from his compatriot Rosewall, but would later bounce back in their h2h closer to the 2nd half of the 60's! Laver's 8 pro slams are just as legit as his 11 grand slams and i would argue they even have more weight than the 6 amateur slams he has won prior to 62'...
I would not have been happy if put in that awkward situation. Poor Pete lol
and now its NOVAK DJOKOVIC
damn, Borg's glasses did their job very well xD - Now, Federer the greatest? I would say so!
This isn't aging well. Rafa will soon take over the slam count and Djoker has already taken over the weeks at number 1 count
Neither did this comment, nor saying Player X is the greatest ever because we never know who will dominate the sport in the future (21-25 definitely seems attainable to those who have the gifts and put in the work to dominate year in year out). Imo weird that the goat debate is Always mentioned, every tournament- a pedestal that is more opinion than fact. The only consensus seems to be slam count. Nobody remembers every moment of every slam, who had easier draws, top peak ability, comebacks, bitter defeats (not that that takes one out of contention from greatest of an era, all players have had weird slam losses) so at the end of the day, it's mostly just a number. I mean, just enjoying one's favorite players legacy/ the epic matches & rivalries seems to be more fun and fulfilling than trying to race to the finish and see who is on top for slam count (could indeed end tie for all we know...) For sure imo at this point in time it seems a case can be made for any of the 'big 3', even if perhaps they doped some, they had all the money in the world and then some, yet still beat up their bodies and laid it all on the line for so many years. So many legends produced from tennis, crazy (maybe like with iconic rockstars, people take them for granted while they are at their peak & maybe there will be several decades without such presences/ talents...)
Laver, Borg and Sampras are the old-3, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are the new-3! Always thought it's very fitting, given how old-3 finished their careers within 11-19 slam range, while the new-3 all went 20+! Haha...
It is impossible to compare players from different tennis generations.
So so many problems. How do you define best, most big titles won, best longetivity at the top, most time at number 1. Time will likely still remember select finals/ moments. The consensus still seems to largely be "on paper Djokovic has the records, but Federer/ Nadal made tennis" & whoever is your favorite is fine no matter if they won slams or not. So many solid masterful tennis players unfortunately get forgotten by most under the weight of the silly goat debate. Its subjective, people will still defend their favorites for being the best at something because humans are naturally biased & try to defend themselves logically
This video should be part of tennis history given how old it is and that the eventual GOAT Novak is not even in question
@DestroyerAlexandros Federer doesn't have such rivals? Nadal has beaten him 17 out of 25 times and has 10 slams by the age of 25. I know you made that comment a year ago but I would've called it stupid then too.
all hail king ROGER!!!
AT THEIR BEST/PEAK, Federer- he was scary good , not just pretty, Also lets face it, sure hard and rosewall were greta players, but it was a different game.Its MUCH more fast powerful competative now, Just look as serve pace. (Tho no tie breakers in those days) , Borg could not win at US Open (tho he came close many times, just as Sampras didnt have a clay game . Lets break it down Laver was clearly the most versatile player-he won at elast two of every grand slam and two slams. Nasal, Fed and Borg have the greatest winning %, Rafa edging the other two. As for Lew hard-you think he was better than Rafa or Joker ? Federer had to beat consistently better players (starting with Sampras at Wimbledon when he was 19 and Sampras played a great game) than rosewall and Hoad, or Gonzales on clay. Hoad was only really great for two years, and his 58% winning percentage pales in comparison with any of the above 77-83 %....would have loved to see what the rocket could do with a modern mid sized racquet in his left hand
the goat debate is only to sell papers more and more.
not really intresting.
Rod laver then everyone else in men’s tennis!
Margaret court, Steffi, Serena, martina on women’s side. Martina with 300+ titles 👍👍
@sosdkny to say federers game is just or mainly baseline is ignorance, he has it all even his so called weak backhand is better that any of the guys outsude the top 7, his forehand is the greatest ever by a long way. his ballance elligance speed fitness, my friend told me to night he has still to see him sweat and hes 30 now, remarkable. about nadal, hes a credit to tennis brilliant player but he is not on the fed, pete or laver standard. sorry dont mean to be personal just very passionate.
do not forget about mcenroe - makes it 43!
kOaMaster2 When you look at the stats McEnroe is the greatest ever by miles. I kid you not, have a look.
As far a s "choking" everyone does it at some point int heir careers. Look at Nadal vs Davydenko in Diha 2010. After a 6-0 first set and several match points in favor, ended up losing the match against the guy he can't beat on hard surfaces... or vs Verdasco in Madrid this year... 5-2 in the this with his serve, 15-0 and an easy smash. missed it, choked and lost 5 games in a row and the match. Djoko lost the RG final with a double fault after being a break up in the 4th. So??
I do think what Novak’s done over the past 10 years, winning the majors, being consistent . . . to me it is a clear sign that he is the greatest of all time."
Pete Sampras
after Wimbledon 2024 final we can safly say there is No Goat
because if Alcaraz came 10 years ago Novak would never win a Wimbledon because Alcarqz would dominate over him 😊
@@rogersalllike9133 actually I agree with you. We can say best in his era. Different time, different rules, different occasion.
@@fraerot YES
in my opinion we will never see a Goat in tennis or any sport because it always depends
If Novak played during Sampras era maybe Novak would never win a slam
If Sampras played in Rogers era Sampras would maybe never win a slam
So a Goat is just about an accomplishments in your period of time because after that time or before that time there could be a player that would be your Kriptonyte stopping you from achieving greatness like Wawrinka
Wawrinka dominated over Novak the last 10 years
so if Wawrinka was younger now he would probably beat Novak in many finals but unfortunately Wawrinka is old and not so consistent to meet Novak in slams because of draw
@sosdkny dont be talking nonsense,the only advantage is the new ones are composite frame compared to wood of old,the strings are still the same gut and synthetic gut,the newer rackets are harder to control the balls with because of the much larger head size,so thats a massive disadvantage.todays players are 10,000% fitter and more athletic than the most athletic player back in the old days,i think u are so wrong,and if every great played to their absolute best federer would win,he has it all.
@kOaMaster2
In singles yeah, but what about including doubles too! Whoa! lol.
Revisiting this question after Wimbledon 2021-puts a fresher perspective
bjorn of course ... :D
roger federer is great no doubt but this Rod laver is absolute Nadal hater
fed and nole >>>
For me a lot of people overrate the Sampras era anyway. Not to take anything away from Sampras, but think about it. Becker and Edberg were nearly out of their primes by the time Sampras's started. Rafter only ever won 2 slams, and Agassi as great he was rarely beat prime Sampras. Most of his slams came later after Sampras had declined so Agassi should be given credit for maintaining a high level into his late 20's. Nadal will go down as a better player than Agassi no doubt.
Steve0904 obviously nadal would be a better player. Twice the slams, boi
Federer faced much weaker competition, until Nadal appeared. Sampras competed against multiple GS winners. Who did Federer win against, until 2005? Becker and Edberg were certainly not past their prime when Sampras appeared. I don't think Sampras ever beat Edberg, who beat him in the 1992 US Open final, and Becker was in a Wimbledon final later, against Sampras, so hardly past it.
1. Laver
2. Borg
3. Federer
Luis Armesto Okay.
Well comments on these subjects, or subject most of the time would not be worth reading .....
Because most people would have no idea what they're talking about.
In Sampras era there was a lot of depth and a lot more out in the elements play, which is very taxing same with McEnroe and Borg
Different balls, Different strings.
Im my opinion Sampras was the greatest fast court player of all time...
BUT now with Nadal one grand slam off Federer
And there is a real argument for the greatest player of all time
Borg!
"Stop the count!".
So you're saying Federer is Lebron, but who's Jordan?
He is saying that Lebron is a bigger talent than Jordan... no comments
i want that you know that I think that technology is making people stupid
because or they dont understand anything or if they understand they shouldnt talk about it and
dont tell why its are far away of truth and this is sure
and thank you.
i want that you know that numbers dont define who is the best because all sports
there are examples of competitors who have more titles but are worse than others
who have less titles then it is a stupidity set the best by numbersand this is sure
and thank you.
*2022:* Nadal 22 and Djokovic 21
Mac is pissed off that HE is not the GOAT , LOL
No balls or heart in clutch moments??? then how did he win 17 GS and has stayed at the top for 290 weeks, more than Rafa and the "new" Joker combined? How come he won Wimbledon at almost 31 beating Djokovic clearly and Murray, the local favorite in the final? What about his final vs Roddick in 09 or his semi vs Del Potro in the semi of the Olympics?
let it go, they are crazy
20 gs
@sosdkny that stuff you see them taking is a sugar and fruit puree, that stuff was available to every player back when, if they wanted it, it was called a banana there was no difference, thats why u see some players like nadal use the puree and federer eat bananas. sorry to keep harping on, but i hate people who know nothing spreading horse-shit, and im sorry if i seam to be berating you i really dont mean to be.navratilova was one of the best ever,thats why we wont see her again.same with fed
Bjorn, wear a hat, for the love of god, you got burned to a crisp!
federer is the one eye king in the world of blind
sorry but cant even beat Nadal (second great in the arena)
sampras days - at least 10 (Nadal like) mega players
nearly all from hall of fame
14 grand slam out of them
Rafa with 20 slams now
MAC almost misty...his two heros laver an bjorn...i know laver was his biggest influence....
@sosdkny im quite a good tennis player ive played for my country at amature level, so i can say with alot of confidance that ur the one who doesnt know ur head from your arse, unless ur on the circuit or something.(that was sarcasm) ive played somebody who played federer.
@sosdkny federer is the grestest serve volly player there vever was, he is not the greatest server tho, that goes to pete. the reason tou dont see as much of it now is because they have slowed down all courts esp wimby to make the game look better to the onlooker, slower courts means more rallies. suger thing, yes it is you get as much sugar and energy in one small tube of puree as you do if u eat half a banana and most players dont want to be eating that much in a match. every half hour
the greatest serve and volley - mcenroe wins that. he had a very good serve, and the absolute best volleys.
@@jimmybrice6360 Said no one ever........
Laver is the GOAT for winning both GS twice in a short time - Federer 2nd easily -- its debatable beyond that
that is a very naive statement. first of all, his first gs was not amongst even the best players. people who do not know the history of the game make a huge mistake when they start using grand slam titles as the biggest criteria. in the olden days, it just was not so. first, when professional tennis started, they could not even compete in grand slams. and most of the best players did not travel to australia and/or the french. rosewall beat laver in the first 2 wct championships. this was a way bigger feat than winning a grand slam tournament. as laver mentioned, rosewall, gonzales and hoad (to a bit of a lesser extent) go right along with laver.
He's not
1.Federer 2.Laver + Gonzales, Tilden, Nadal, Sampras, Borg + Budge, Connors, Lendl, Djokovic, McEnroe, Rosewall, Kramer, Agassi
Ah! Finally someone who knows and has followed tennis properly! (Glad that you included Budge/Lendl/Rosewall/Kramer and especially Gonzalez)!
I think this really must come down to total grand slams. And the second decider players on equal grand slams, is masters titles won. That gives us 1)federer 2) Nadal 3) sampras 4)djokovic 5)emerson 6)laver and borg (7) tilden 8) connors, fred perry, rosewall , lendle, agassi. These are all in the top ten. I'm not sure of the number of masters won by emerson, laver, borg, tilden, connors, perry, rosewall lendle or agassi, so I've grouped them together based on grand slam titles won. The number of masters they've won will decide between players with same number of grand slam titles-nadal beats sampras to no 2, because of his superior masters titles record. This method of judging the greatest players was set up by tennis instead. The sport decided that grand slams were the main test of greatness, as all the top players are in the draw, and they are five setters, with everyone in the draw more matches to play. Laver cannot be put instead of nadal because nadal's records show him superior in every area-greatest clay court player of all time, most masters tournaments won (only recently eclipsed by dkokovic) but nadal's masters record is superior to lavers ans thats what matters. And noone can be put above federer who's 18 grand slams trumps everyone, plus federer had sampras like era of dominance at no 1, plus has further cemented his legacy by beating the most top 10 players in a grand slam in history to reach the final of the australian open at the age of 35, and then beat nadal to win it. Saying stuff like-laver could have won more if this or that didnt happen is just pointless. The fact laver didnt win them. And it is not right to credit a player as best if they haven't earnt it by winning the grand slams. I don't get marks for exams or essays if I don't do the essays. I don't turn up and say "im the greatest in the class, even though I missed loads of classes and only did 1 of the 5 essays set this year. Thats why we have grand slams- to determine greatness in the sport of tennis. Ignoring the grand slam record is ignoring tennis rules, and tennis's foundation. Federer has earned it, he won the 18 grand slams, more than any other player. And remember players are more athletic now , have better defensive skills and better fitness levels. As courts are slower you need more tools to your game than simply a fast serve and rush the net. Players now have all the shots. So winning 18 grandslams was not an easy feat. There are no weak eras. This is an invented argument which people use to try to deligimatise the success of a sportman. If you add up everyone who argues this "weak era argument" and put them all together, it would mean that every single tennis era was weak. So its a stupid argument when people argue that. Please can people stop elevating Laver further than his position in the grand slam charts. Sure he was one of the greats with 11 grand slams, and Borg was a great with 11 grand slams. And djokovic is a great with 12, as is emerson. Before federer sampras was the greatest with 14 grand slams, and an era where he dominated. However federer dominated his era even more than sampras and nadal also reached his 14 grand slams quicker than sampras did. So the previous era of players have been surpased. As comparing eras is a controverisal, complicated and largely non factual opinionated affair, we must stick with the pure science, the pure math of total grand slams won, and secondary-how many masters titles won to decide the best between players with equal number of grand slam trophies.
wrong by a long way
Shaun Humphreys I agree. Plus the fact that Federer is by far the most technically advanced and graceful player ever. They were and are all great but Federer just has it all and then some.
Borg should be higher by virtue of his 5/6 year dominance of Wimbledon and the French Open, Has anyone dominated two such contrasting surfaces like Borg did? Federer best overall.
Roger is goat
Leaving aside the changes is racquets, balls and surfaces and looking only at how complete a player is, Borg, Connors and Lendl are nowhere near the caliber of Roger. Only Laver and to a lesser extent, Sampras. Roger is a great baseliner (like Borg, Connors and Lendl), with an incredible serve, a powerful attack game (much more so than the 3 mentioned), great volley (same point) and is the best "shot maker" since McEnroe. The difference with Sampras is Roger is a much better defender than Pete
good analysis.
1- Laver
2- Federer
3- Borg
4- Sampras
5- Kramer
6- Hoad
7- Gonzales
8- Lendl
9- McEnroe
axlpoggi i agree with most of that list but nadal and djoko should be somewhere there
1. King Fed!
2. Laver
3. Sampras
yeah
Ruihan Wang How "yeah"? His comment was 8 years ago. No way is Sampras with 14 GS over Nadal with 16 GS.
Marcos true, true
marcos noones played real tennis since the early 2000s its a different sport. pete is still the king and would whip up on anyone on the 90s courts.
RL was just partially right there after that WB'09 final, Federer indeed went on to win a huge 5 slam titles more coupled with 2 YEC & 13 more masters, but Federer should've stopped playing tennis a few years ago by the end of 2018 or at the beginning of 2019, as for The Rocket to have also been right about him clearly being the GOAT after his retirement.
Now, it is very likely he retires as the no.3, which is mind boggling considering he has amassed 6 more slams than Pistol Pete as well as considerably more Masters, YEC and weeks at no.1, but, unlike Pete who was Open Era Goat for about 7 years after his last slam rubber, Federer shall in all probability finish his farewell slam rubber as no.3 in the Open Era Goat list, nevertheless, he was an Open Era Goat couple of years longer than Sampras, WB'09-WB'21 to WB'1999-WB'09.
It’s a shame Sampras retired at 31 on 14 majors. I wonder if he secretly regrets retiring so young.
He can make record after record without competition but no use , only academic interest. Three players who could beat him is Nadal, Jokovich and Murray , two are injured and Nadal , we donot know how long he will continue. He also should play selective matches to keep his winning streak as Federer did not play French open avoiding tough matches . These players use lighter rackets, 40 % less weight than old Wilson wooden Racket with large area which generates more power . Connors saw all the champions 11 wimbledon champions , clash with most of them From Laver, Rosewall , Ash , Mckenroe to Sampras and Agassi, Becker, Cash, Edberg and so on .He played my be 15 french champions and Australian champions. He used all the Rackets from wooden to day modern racket , played till 40 years.Hence Guys , Connors is the greatest and nobody stands before him. Federer is tiny before the this tennis legend , Mr.Connors. And still he plays at the age of 66 and that is the passion for the game.The comments are totally biased and very sorry to listen forgettin the other legends.
Sampras is the best!
I think in retirement Sampras beat Federer in a series of exhibition matches, interesting stat.
@@fritzlange7934 Sampras only beat Fed Once in an Exhibition... much as I hate to admit it, only their tour match in 01 wimbledon really counts (even tho h2h is a piss poor indicator of greatness). Everyone has their biases, people can't be completely objective when judging/ comparing players. Basically there isn't a definite goat imo if it's highly contested. Even if there was (a clear "goat"), the sport would be more boring because of it & people bringing up weird excuses like "weak era" even more. Rivals make the player too, can't have celebrated greatness if it were always a bashing, regardless of how solid competition is/was... tho in reality, no one player in history is/ was the best or greatest under all conditions
Then Djokovic and Nadal showed up...
sampras is
roger edgerton get over yourself federer will never be the legendary player pistol was. noones played real tennis since the early 2000s anyways. pete is still king.
and federer cant beat 2 of his main rivals, pete beat every single one of his main rivals read em n weep.
roger edgerton All surfaces? That's a laugh. All the courts are the same slow crap for the protected Federer. Tennis is a slow court joke including green clay Wimbledon for the protected Big 3.
1.federer
2.sampra
3.laver
4.borg
5.lendl
6.mcenroe
...........and so on and so forth
11 years later and 2 people have enetered the list
Perhaps will be top 2 at the end too
Can't stand JMAC
He probably was the best ever in 2009, and still was best ever untill the other day when Nadal won 21 slams at 35, coming back from the dead against Medvedev.
Unfortunately Federer has always had problems playing his best tennis when it mattered the most... This is smtg that djoko and Nadal are total supreme at...
So yeah, in my eyes Federer was the best ever tennis player , but he was not able to prove that when it mattered the most, especially against Novak...
As it stands, Nadal is the best, and Roger and Novak are just behind... It would be ironic if when all is done and dusted, Federer had less grand slams than Nadal and Novak... And I'm afraid that is what is going to happen.
Novak now is the best with 22 slams +38 Masters + 6 ATP Finals. Nadal is just behind
Djokovic laver McEnroe Federer
Sampras the GOAT
No, only the clay goat 😂
talent wise, he is the greatest. But to call him overall the greatest of all time, hell no. He is not the greatest athlete (when compared to "new" Joker and rafa for example). And he has no balls and heart in clutch moments. Novak won so many matches just cuz of his heart and guts. While Federer chokes. There is no suck thing as "luck" as many like to find excuse in.
It's like when people compare Lebron to Jordan.Maybe Lebron is bigger talent, but he will never have heart and guts of Jordan.
Five years later... Federer at 36 wins his 20th GS. While Joker and Rafa struggle with injury (okay Nadal had a fantastic 2017 and will probably do phenomenal this year too).
@@DjokovicIsOurLordAndSaviour rafa has now 20 slams
@@rishbahpandey8697 Crazy. At this point it does just seem to come down to who can stay in shape the longest.
@@DjokovicIsOurLordAndSaviour Five years later.... Djokovic at 35 won his 22nd GS while Federer already retired last year with the same 20 GS
@@ahmedisa3723 Haha crazy. It's going to be interesting to see how well Novak can hold up, this elbow injury seems more serious/persistent than anything he's had in some time. I suspect Nadal will retire very soon.
Who could have foreseen the rise of Alcaraz though? It makes me excited for any new youngsters just around the corner.
federer is not that good on the volleys guys !
SeymorOblivion This statement proves that you have never seen his game
He meant not so good as Sampras I guess.
It is both true and false. Federer is good by today's shitty standards, but not so good as the time when you had S&V players. He is nowhere near the elite of Mac and Edberg and also far from other solid volleyers like Sampras and Becker.
Who gives a fuck about emmerson and borg pete say it federer is the goat
Djokovic is Federer's daddy.
Federer, Nadal, Djokovic have never won on a true grass court at Wimbledon. All their GS titles won on slow courts. They're the best of the weak slow court era.
which led to the days of the 90's servebot and volley 2-shot "rallies" when people turned off ATP Wimbledon and more viewers watched the WTA version of all things!
1. Laver 2. McEnroe 3. Rosewall 4. Rafa 5. Borg 6. Djoker (....) 35. Boring ace machine Samprassopoulos (....) 167. Boring ace machine on dope Roger The Whiner.
Astrafalustre 19 Grand Slams > Anything
Astrafalustre go urself Roger doesn't dope and he is the greatest
Sampras vs Agassi was the best rivalry ever. Such good matchups. Sampras is better than Djokovic as well.
Roger Doperer is best on PEDs maybe.