Greatest Male Tennis Player Of All Time

[CK]

Have been having an interesting debate in the Gambling Room with G and Mal about who are among the greatest male players of all time, so thought I'd open it up to everyone else to vote on and discuss also. It is quite possible I have accidentally left some names out of this list, but that can be part of the debate also.

[Media Park]

Some of those names I am reluctant to comment on, because I don't know them, but in my era, ROger Federer is head and shoulders above the rest.

[GWW]

This is almost as difficult as comparing footballers from yesteryear with their contempories, its basically an impossible task made more difficult by development of racquet technology and the onset of the professional era 50 years ago.

But my 2 cents worth - I'd like to be able to say Federer who is a favourite of mine but with Nadal taking over as no 1 it takes over the gloss of Fed's career somewhat. Borg's 5 straight Wimbledons means hes up there, whilst McEnroe was nearly unbeatable in the early 80's. Sampras looked like he would take the title as best ever but his form dipped considerably in the last 3 or 4 years of his career.

Laver is frequently regarded as best ever, my dad who followed tennis in that era rated Hoad as a superior player. If we were to base this on which player was the most impressive at their peak I would award the title to Agassi, at his best his tennis was breathtaking, and there's never been a better return of serve than him, but he didnt maintain his peak as long as a lot of players, and his record in majors wasn't up their with Federer or Sampras.

Another player I'd mention is Edberg who is right up there with the greatest serve-volley players of all time (likewise Becker). If I have to nominate 1 player I'll say Federer although I suspect when we have this debate in ten years time it may be Nadal.

[cripple]

Nadal will end up being better then the fed by the end of his career, injury permitting. If he wins the aus open this week and holds a rafa slam, will only add to his lustre as a great

[Jim05]

While not being best ever yet. Rafa will rule the world for a while and in 10 years time he will be known as the best ever. Can see him doing a slam

[Strawb]

Rod Laver then the rest. Laver won the Grand Slam in the same year twice once as a amateur and then as a professional. Also remember the balls and rackets were different then and the competition was alot different as well.

[Moe]

I voted for Borg & Federer.
When i get asked the footy equivilent, my answers are Leigh Matthews & Wayne Carey, for the same reasons. I saw the end of Borg's reign and have seen the whole of Fed's era. Cannot separate them.
Love the way they use placement, sublety, mind games and sheer brilliance over power. great to watch.

[Grahaml]

Nadal is not the best ever, and never will be. He may be a dominating type of player and certainly does give his opponent very little, but I don't see him beating the Federer from 2004-2005. Federer back then was a far superior player to what we see now, make no mistake. But in my mind, the only way to call someone the "greatest of all time" is to compare how they would go in other eras. Nadal on grass with wooden raquets would not be able to compete. Federer would still be a massive tournament threat.

It will never be possible to compare properly with the changes in equipment, for example, how will we ever know how Laver would go with a modern raquet on hardcourt all the time? But from what I have seen with Sampras, Agassi, Nadal and Federer (the only ones of the possible cantidates I've seen enough of) Federer has the best all-round game, was the most dominant at his best and would be the most likely to be the #1 in any era. So he gets my vote without question.

[smac]

For me, McEnroe closely followed by Lendl.

Someone mentioned Agassi's return of serve up the page, McEnroe was better - by a lot - IMO. Was awesome to watch, shame his temper has taken the gloss of his tennis.

[GWW]

Lendl was too one dimensional, couldnt volley and had a relatively poor record on lawn. Re return of serve, the speed of serves and the game itself was quite a bit quicker in Agassi's era than it was in McEnroe's.

[Dirko]

Nadal is not the best ever, and never will be. He may be a dominating type of player and certainly does give his opponent very little, but I don't see him beating the Federer from 2004-2005. Federer back then was a far superior player to what we see now, make no mistake. But in my mind, the only way to call someone the "greatest of all time" is to compare how they would go in other eras. Nadal on grass with wooden raquets would not be able to compete. Federer would still be a massive tournament threat.

It will never be possible to compare properly with the changes in equipment, for example, how will we ever know how Laver would go with a modern raquet on hardcourt all the time? But from what I have seen with Sampras, Agassi, Nadal and Federer (the only ones of the possible cantidates I've seen enough of) Federer has the best all-round game, was the most dominant at his best and would be the most likely to be the #1 in any era. So he gets my vote without question.

Well put.

Federer is the complete package. Can serve, dominate from the baseline, has a deft and accurate volley, and moves around the court with sublime silky pace.

Never rushed, and just hits the shots with either great topspin, or deft slice.

Federer is the best.

[Pat Malone]

Fed's game now is different to 04/05. He has been able to adapt his game to the change in top notch competitors, along with variation in serve and volley style on grass to ralleys with the big guys on hard courts. His ability to change imo has probaby been better than what nadals will be as he doesnt have the all round game of fed (hard to say when he is holding 3 of 4 slams). So fed is so far the best ever imo.

[bayman]

where is frank sedgman in that poll ?

[Swamp Donkey]

There is no comparison in my view....Federer by a mile!

[Johno6]

its hard to compare best players of all time in any sport compared to best players of eras,
becuase who you play against makes a massive difference also..
would bradman still of averaged 99 if he played in this era
would jordan of been as dominant if he played in this era etc etc

i have to vote for the fed express
best ive witnessed

[Booney]

Martina Navratilova.

[valleys07]

Federer for me

[OnSong]

Federer. Not only a brilliant player, but a brilliant champion as well. Humble. Honest. A true gentleman of world sport.
Even his missus isn't an overly glamourous trophy wife you see players brandishing around.
I mean, you can talk all you like about on-court exploits, but I think his off-court nature puts him that little bit above those champions of yesteryear.

[RustyCage]

Nadal is not the best ever, and never will be. He may be a dominating type of player and certainly does give his opponent very little, but I don't see him beating the Federer from 2004-2005. Federer back then was a far superior player to what we see now, make no mistake. But in my mind, the only way to call someone the "greatest of all time" is to compare how they would go in other eras. Nadal on grass with wooden raquets would not be able to compete. Federer would still be a massive tournament threat.
It will never be possible to compare properly with the changes in equipment, for example, how will we ever know how Laver would go with a modern raquet on hardcourt all the time? But from what I have seen with Sampras, Agassi, Nadal and Federer (the only ones of the possible cantidates I've seen enough of) Federer has the best all-round game, was the most dominant at his best and would be the most likely to be the #1 in any era. So he gets my vote without question.

In saying that, players from the wooden raquet era would not be able to compete against the likes of Nadal these days as they would be completely overpowered.

[pigskin]

Rod Laver by a lot!!!!!!!!!! 4 Grand slams, 2 of which will never be in the record books because he went professional, back when the slams were Amature events, then some 7 years later, when tennis finally come to its senses and the open era begun, wins the Grand slam again, & the 5 years previous only dropping something like 8 matches.

I may be wrong, but not to sure any of the others have true Grand slams (calander year) & if they do they definately dont have multiples