With Federer leading the pack in terms of Grand Slams, many are stating that he is the greatest player of all time. However, are the efforts of Borg, McEnroe and others greater even though they did not win as many slams?
I would go with Federer or Sampras. It's hard to say with Federer though, as he is the all-time leader in Grand Slams but he also did much of that during a weak era in men's Tennis. Once Rafael Nadal entered the scene he has certainly got the best of Federer, which could also make his case for being someone who could potentially be considered the greatest after a few more years.
I love watching Federer play, but I don't think he's the best of all time. I think he's amazing and thrilling to watch play, but already Nadal is the youngest player in the open era to win a career Golden Slam, all 4 Grand Slams and an Olympic gold for his country. Federer has lost more than twice as many times to Nadal as he has wins over him.
I think they both have what some earlier players didn't have, and that's the ability to make people of all ages want to watch them play. Their grace, strength and control is inspiring.
It's got to be Borg for me; he was amazingly fit - even fitter than Nadal is, won 6 French Opens, Wimbledon 5 times in a row and had an incredible tempriment - what a lot of people do not realize is that he retired at 24 - just imagine how many tournaments he could have won if he stayed playing into his 30s (Federer is 30 this year).
During Grand Slam tournaments he won an incredible 90% of all matches - and 41% of all tournaments he entered!
There's no doubt that Federer and Nadal are up there in the top three or four ever but Borg simply had the most all round game that was unbeatable at times (especially on clay...Nadal has a similar 'factor' on clay, but still....
Yeah. Agassi was better than Sampras even though Sampras has more career grand slams by quite a bit, more head-to-head wins, more head-to-head wins in grand slams, and more head-to-head wins in grand slam finals. Right. I liked Agassi and did not care too much for Sampras, but I can't put Agassi over Sampras.
Well to be fair, I don't really follow women's tennis cagsil, as the only ones that I know of are the Williams sisters, anna kournikova and maria sharapova. that's it. I'm sure there's better tennis players for women that I could've mentioned, but as i said, i don't follow women's tennis. Not that I follow men's tennis anymore, but I know a lot more about men's tennis than i do about womens.
That's cool. I knew you were just asking, so I just answered. To be honest, tennis isn't really my favorite sport, as I'm more into basketball and football. And even those, I don't really follow as constantly as i used to when I was a kid.
Since it seems like some have thrown the greatest female tennis player of all-time into the mix, I think that would have to be Steffi Graf. Hasn't she won over 20 grand slam titles? I remember she was pretty much unbeatable in her era.
I think I'd have to separate it into the wooden racket era and the modern era, because tennis changed so much with the modern rackets. The game lost some of its finesse and became more about power and speed. I'll take Bjorn Borg for the wooden racket era, and I'll give Roger Federer the edge over Sampras for the modern era. I don't really think Sampras' competition was much better than Federer's, they were just more famous.
When discussing tennis from the wooden racket era, it's also important to remember that the Grand Slam wasn't a big deal back then. Borg skipped the Australian Open for most of his career.
Don't know how many tennis fans we have here on HP, but for those of you who are out there... what do you think?He's the second youngest to do it, and the first since Laver to win French, Wimby, and US in a row. ...
With the French Open concluded, the tour moves on to the grass in preparation for Wimbledon. Wimbledon 2012 begins June 25 and conclude on July 8.Novak Djokovic will be back to try to defend his title in Gentleman's...