Greatest Tennis Player of All Time

For Nadal and Federer, whether you think they are already the best ever or at least will be by the end of their career.

No Murray?

No. No Henman, Todd Martin or any other milquetoasts like that either.

I wrote I kid at the side.

Jelavic18|RFC wrote:No Murray?

ikidI lick anus and I wear a kilt

Fixed

I voted Federer as he's the best I've seen but I always felt Sampras was underrated. He was brilliant and won slam after slam yet was never loved by the fans. Agassi was amazing as well but I don't think I really saw him in his prime.

Obviously you then have, Borg, Becker, McEnroe as well.

___

Oh grow up Jela, as if you reported that comment.

Agassi's prime is hard to define anyway. He peaked in the early 90s, went to shit for about 5 years, then came back and had another strong run into his 30s. The only thing he did that Pete didn't do was win a French Open. Other than that, Pete owned him. So I would take Pete over Andre all day long, but Federer takes the cake because he has the most slams and he's been successful on all surfaces.

McEnroe's tantrums.

Best player ever? Federer.

I wouldn't be surprised if Nadal passes him though.

Either way I still think Federer would go down as the better player, there's more to it than just the grand slams.

The style and elegance with which Federer plays and the charisma he has off the pitch means he'll go down as more of a great for me.

Jordi wrote:McEnroe's tantrums.

You cannot be serious!

menalawyerguy wrote:

Jelavic18|RFC wrote:No Murray?

ikidI lick anus and I wear a kilt

Fixed

Someone reported it...

Ben wrote:Either way I still think Federer would go down as the better player, there's more to it than just the grand slams.

The style and elegance with which Federer plays and the charisma he has off the pitch means he'll go down as more of a great for me.

In terms of charisma, nothing beats Nada's habitual ass picking.

Liverpool wrote:

menalawyerguy wrote:

Jelavic18|RFC wrote:No Murray?

ikidI lick anus and I wear a kilt

Fixed

Someone reported it...

Federer. Nadal is on his way to topping him though.

Sampras.

menalawyerguy wrote:

Jelavic18|RFC wrote:No Murray?

ikidI lick anus and I wear a kilt

Fixed

This got reported.

Steffi Graf.

menalawyerguy wrote:The only thing he did that Pete didn't do was win a French Open.

& Olympic gold. But you're right - even though Agassi has the Golden Slam, Pete still owned him.

To be honest it's impossible to say - most of us have only ever seen Federer & Nadal play, maybe Sampras & Agassi too so it's impossible to compare them with the others.

And given the way the game is constantly changing, certain players thrive in different eras and would gain more success than someone who's more technically gifted - kind of like how Nadal's dominated over Federer in recent years). Heck, if you gave a peak Borg one of those fancy carbon fibre rackets with those fancy natural gut strings, who knows how good he could've been.

WHERE THE FUCK IS PANCHO SEGURA?

And Pancho Gonzales for that matter. And Lew Hoad.

There was a time when Grand Slams were only for amateurs, some of the best who went pro often get disregarded because they didn't win as many slams as the others.

Bjorn Borg then Laver, then Sampras.

Nadal would be top five and Roge is overrated imo. Capitalised on one of the worst periods in mens tennis for talent until Nadal came along and gave him a challenge; one which he's mostly come out 2nd best in.

SBSP wrote:

menalawyerguy wrote:

Jelavic18|RFC wrote:No Murray?

ikidI lick anus and I wear a kilt

Fixed

This got reported.

By Ross most likely, the tosspot. And you have no clue at all Pimp, Federer isn't overrated, in my opinion he's the greatest of them all.

jeb4eva wrote:

SBSP wrote:

menalawyerguy wrote:

Jelavic18|RFC wrote:No Murray?

ikidI lick anus and I wear a kilt

Fixed

This got reported.

By Ross most likely, the tosspot. And you have no clue at all Pimp, Federer isn't overrated, in my opinion he's the greatest of them all.

I have every clue, about several of his majors came with no serious competition like the mostly one trick pony Roddick.

Roloman4 wrote:WHERE THE FUCK IS PANCHO SEGURA?

The same place as Jack Kramer (who owned Segura head-to-head): not on the list.

Not every list has to have an Ecuadorian Rolo

federer

menalawyerguy wrote:

Roloman4 wrote:WHERE THE FUCK IS PANCHO SEGURA?

The same place as Jack Kramer (who owned Segura head-to-head): not on the list.

Not every list has to have an Ecuadorian Rolo

They still deserve to be on the list.

Roloman4 wrote:

menalawyerguy wrote:

Roloman4 wrote:WHERE THE FUCK IS PANCHO SEGURA?

The same place as Jack Kramer (who owned Segura head-to-head): not on the list.

Not every list has to have an Ecuadorian Rolo

They still deserve to be on the list.

Only room for 20 I'm afraid.

Who would you have me take off in Kramer's and Pancho's favor? Every guy on that list has at least 5 slams. And while that might not be fair to the pre-open era players who turned pro and thus didn't get to compete in slams, there are other reasons why Pancho should not be on the list. Kramer said he had the greatest forehand ever but he didnt know how to use it properly. He ran around every shot he could to hit his forehand and therefore wasted a lot more energy than he needed to. His game wasn't efficient. And there are a couple players in his time who owned him head-to-head: Kramer (as mentioned), Pancho Gonzales, Dinny Pails and Don Budge had a small edge on him.

Federer wins.

menalawyerguy wrote:

Jelavic18|RFC wrote:No Murray?

ikidI lick anus and I wear a kilt

Fixed

This got reported
Jela