Who is the greatest male tennis player ever? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Who is the greatest male tennis player ever?

Ace Tracker
08-17-2002, 10:57 AM
just modern era tennis please...;)

I know Sampras is probably the best player on grass ever, but can his overall career accomplishments hold well against other great ones? Your call...:p

Nimi
08-17-2002, 11:10 AM
Pete, he dominated tennis for 6 straight years in an era that had Agassi, Ivanisevic, Courier, Chang etc.

Chloe le Bopper
08-17-2002, 11:22 AM
If you include Rod Laver, I suppose that I can consider BOTH his grand slams, and all the slams he couldn't play because he was a professional before 1968?

Ace Tracker
08-17-2002, 11:31 AM
of course you can...I am not old enough to have seen Laver play, but tennis enthusiasts I have spoken with, tell me that Laver's game is probably good enough to hold well against today's players, physical and equipment technology differences apart. Laver's total Slam tally would have been higher if not for his then professional status...I think he was truly the dominant player of his time, more so than Rosewall..

tennischick
08-17-2002, 12:51 PM
always a topic of contention!

hey how come Boris Broom-Broom Becker is not on your list? or is he "other"? ;) ;)

Mimi
08-17-2002, 02:10 PM
Pete Sampras the great :cool:

Mrs. B
08-17-2002, 02:17 PM
In the modern era, Pete Sampras.

13 Grand Slam Titles, 6 years as #1.

per4ever
08-17-2002, 03:25 PM
Bjorn Borg or Rod Laver

Scotso
08-17-2002, 04:08 PM
Where's Lleyton :confused:


In that case, Borg.

AdriRob
08-17-2002, 04:20 PM
Sampras!!!

he's the man.

TennisHack
08-17-2002, 05:39 PM
Bjorn Borg, people, Bjorn Borg.

He played well on the most opposite of surfaces--red clay then grass, winning 3 back-to-back Slams at RG & Wimbly.

And, he knew when to quit. :D

Pea
08-17-2002, 05:49 PM
andy roddick:o

irma
08-17-2002, 06:18 PM
rod laver!

luvbadboys
08-17-2002, 06:37 PM
Pea lmao

Andre Agassi

Lindsayfan
08-17-2002, 06:41 PM
Sampras-no doubt

TheBoiledEgg
08-17-2002, 07:27 PM
for me there was only one "eggberg" ;)
Stefan Edberg is my all time fav


Bjorn Borg from that list

SanTaureau Fan
08-17-2002, 07:32 PM
I voted "other". :)

Ace Tracker
08-17-2002, 09:23 PM
I know some people are great fans of Becker, Edberg, Connors, Wilander and others, but I think their overall careers fall short when compared to the ones in the poll...

Chloe le Bopper
08-17-2002, 09:45 PM
Where's Lleyton


In that case, Borg.

Tell me you are joking?


To answer the question - I think that a few have a case for me - Borg, Laver, and Sampras.

If Borg would have won just ONE of those 4 US Open finals, I'm pretty sure I wouldnt' be confused at all.

Nimi
08-17-2002, 10:00 PM
Really, Jimmy Connors won more titles than anyone else (109 i think) in the modern era, he should be included here.

Chloe le Bopper
08-17-2002, 10:08 PM
Didn't Connors win 7 slams as well?

And what about Wilander? Didn't he win 3 slams in one year, and 7 all together?

Nimi
08-17-2002, 10:33 PM
Too bad there are only 10 options in the poll

Barrie_Dude
08-18-2002, 12:33 AM
Bjorn was certainly the greatest I saw play!

fresh
08-18-2002, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by TheBoiledEgg
for me there was only one "eggberg" ;)
Stefan Edberg is my all time fav


Eggy - ditto :)

13 Slams vote for Sampras, but my heart is with Stefan. And he`s not even in the list :(

Dissident
08-18-2002, 09:10 PM
Its difficult to vote for this when you are only 21.... and tennis is soooo new here... :p
Anyway, I heard from many people that Laver was incredible.
I´ve seen some of IceBorg´s matches on tape, and :eek: He was so great!
So, I would be between those two and Pete.
As Borg is someone Ive actually seen play and that has the style most appealing to me, Im gonna pick him. :D

sparkle
08-20-2002, 08:37 PM
Conners is without a doubt one of the best ever. He was #1 probably longer than anyone else, he played from like 1972 to the 1990s, almost to 40 yrs old, and he won constantly. Arthur Ashe had to retire early because of his heart and never was able to play tennis again, but he was certainly one of the great champions.

mmm!marat
08-20-2002, 10:12 PM
sampras :)

tennisvideos
08-21-2002, 03:53 AM
Ken Rosewall was right up there. Not saying he was the best, but he was not far from it if he wasn't.

He won French, Australian & US Opens in the early 1950s, then turned pro and couldn't play the majors for 11 years (during which time he won many of the Pro Majors). It also took Laver 2 years to beat Rosewall on the Pro tour after Laver turned Pro and had just won his first Grand Slam.

Then Rosewall comes back to the tour in 1968 and won the US Open, Aussie Open and French Open again!!!!

Although he didn't win WImbledon, he was a finalist 4 times and missed out on playing during his 11 years from his early 20s to mid 30s!

Ken Rosewall certainly one of the !!!

Chloe le Bopper
08-21-2002, 05:55 AM
OMG Pea I KNEW you were a closet Andy Fan :eek:

freakske
08-21-2002, 10:56 AM
LLEYTON
.. mmm... john :D

MS_Goose
08-21-2002, 11:57 AM
Pete Sampras. People often talk of "new technology" for years now, and Pete has been using the same type racket he's been using since he started carreer. If he uses the racket today's top player are using, I have no doubt that his shots would be much more powerful.

Mimi
08-23-2002, 06:47 AM
Pete Sampras, the greatest of the greatest!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lucas Arg
08-23-2002, 08:38 AM
Why Guillermo Vilas is not in that poll?

He is the best:D

Mimi
08-24-2002, 03:46 AM
pete is the greatest, no argument :D :p

irma
08-24-2002, 10:27 AM
thomas johansson :p

Layla
08-25-2002, 08:28 AM
This is completely subjective, but...

Ivan Lendl my childhood hero.

harry_potter
08-25-2002, 10:04 AM
Pete Sampras :D

btw, i'm back! :D

Ada Monroe
08-30-2002, 01:00 PM
I'd say Bjorn Borg cause no man has won the French Open-Wimbledon double for 22 years (and counting).

Plus he won so many in such a short career, if he played more surely he would've won more.

Jorge
08-30-2002, 05:11 PM
i am agree with Pea, Andy is the best ever, by far!:rolleyes:

talking on real tennis players, in my opinion the greatest ever must be some of this three dudes: Borg, Laver and/or Lendl;)

itsallgood
08-30-2002, 07:01 PM
I would say that Pistol Pete Sampras is the most dominant player of all time but in terms of actual ability and talent - there is only one person it could possibly be >>>>>>>>>>>

JOHNNY MAC - he could play any style on any surface and absolutely destroy his opponents with a mixture of speed, agility, tactics, power and seemingly magical control over the tennis ball - basically, what Johnny Mac couldn't do with a tennis ball just wasn't worth doing ............. he was undoubtedly the most naturally gifted player to ever walk on a court and pick up a racket. The only person that comes close to him (and I hate to say it because of his disgusting attitude) is Marcelo Rios.

hehe - fairly contentious choices but hey - if you don't like then you know what to .......

JUST BRING IT !!!!!!!

Wojtek
08-30-2002, 07:04 PM
1. Rod Leaver
2. Andre Agassi
3. Pete Sampras

Princess Fiona
08-30-2002, 11:02 PM
Nicolas Lapentti! :hearts: (In THESE eyes, anyway! ;))

No, I really don't know...

hythger
07-27-2003, 09:18 PM
Agassi rules!!!!

tennischick
07-27-2003, 11:56 PM
Gianluca Pozzi...:p

Elleke
07-28-2003, 12:22 PM
John McEnroe

Pea
07-28-2003, 01:46 PM
It has to be dickhead! God created the most perfect speciman.

Darran
07-28-2003, 02:20 PM
Hmmm i'd say there was a big doubt it was Sampras. He won loads of wimbledons with a big serve sure. But other than that his record aint that spectacular, and the inability to cut it on clay speaks volumes for me. Far greater contenders for no1 alltime than Sampras out there.

the cat
07-28-2003, 02:22 PM
Rod laver. Two grand slams says it all! :D And he missed several years of grnad slam play because he turned professional and thus wasn't allowed to play the grand slams.

And unlike Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors who routinely skipped grand slams, Laver never willingly skipped any of the four grand slams. He played them all and won them all.

Mimi
07-30-2003, 03:11 AM
pete, laver and Borg :cool:

Lee
07-30-2003, 04:51 AM
Hmmm i'd say there was a big doubt it was Sampras. He won loads of wimbledons with a big serve sure. But other than that his record aint that spectacular, and the inability to cut it on clay speaks volumes for me. Far greater contenders for no1 alltime than Sampras out there.

So, 6 years in a roll ending as #1 player in the world count as NOTHING! 7 GS other than Wimbletons count as NOTHING! TMS Rome (btw, this is a clay court event) count as NOTHING!

And according to you, only players won Roland Garros can be count as contenders for #1 alltime great than! :haha:

Laury
07-30-2003, 07:24 AM
Sampras!
He was #1 for many years

Vut
08-01-2003, 12:01 PM
:D Andre Agassi

JeLuliA88
02-12-2004, 01:18 AM
As far as most grand slam winners go, Sampras is definitley ahead of the pack...

J. Corwin
02-12-2004, 09:24 AM
always a topic of contention!

hey how come Boris Broom-Broom Becker is not on your list? or is he "other"? ;) ;)

Becker was a great player and accomplished a lot, but certainly doesn't belong in a list arguing for all time greats. He's not in the same tier as those players mentioned in the poll.

WyveN
02-12-2004, 10:59 AM
I agree Jackson
McEnroe and Lendl don't deserve to be there either, how could they possibly be ahead of Sampras or Borg?

To the person who said Sampras's record isn't impressive outside Wimbledon, hello? The guy won 5 US opens. Who has won more?
He is also arguably the greatest carpet player.

WyveN
02-12-2004, 11:03 AM
I don't see how Agassi can be ahead of Sampras either
Does the 1 French Open compensate for Sampras's 6 extra slams, 5 extra year end # 1s, many more weeks at #1, more year end championships, a DC that Sampras can claim he won virtually by himself

Would anyone really choose Andres career?

Domino
02-12-2004, 11:26 AM
Pancho Gonzalez. Only at the age of forty when Open tennis arrived was he allowed to play, and he made it to the semis of several grand slam events. Twenty years of his life were spent doing tours with all the greats, and he would beat all of them, effectively being tour champion nearly every year. Check out his C.V. here at the tennis hall of fame: http://www.tennisfame.com/enshrinees/pancho_gonzales.html

Vass
02-13-2004, 03:26 PM
If Sampras is not the man, Agassi certaily isn't too.

Deejay
02-13-2004, 04:53 PM
I would have to say Pete even though he was always very poor on the clay. Behind him I would put Agassi then Laver as they have proved that they can play well on all the surfaces unlike most other players....

Tennis Fool
08-09-2004, 10:27 PM
Agassi.

landoud
08-09-2004, 10:31 PM
pete sampras ofcourse

Crazy_Fool
08-09-2004, 10:44 PM
To me personally, I think Borg's record of winning 3 Wimbledon - RG back2back has to be considered more than Sampras' 7 Wimbledons. Ok its only my opinion, but to be able to adjust in such a short space of time from clay to grass is amazing. Sampras won the majority of his titles on fast surfaces, but people seem to actually ignore the fact he wasn't that great on clay. I can't ignore that fact, the best player ever should have been the best at that particular time on all surfaces.

wraith
08-09-2004, 11:05 PM
To me personally, I think Borg's record of winning 3 Wimbledon - RG back2back has to be considered more than Sampras' 7 Wimbledons. Ok its only my opinion, but to be able to adjust in such a short space of time from clay to grass is amazing. Sampras won the majority of his titles on fast surfaces, but people seem to actually ignore the fact he wasn't that great on clay. I can't ignore that fact, the best player ever should have been the best at that particular time on all surfaces.

Plus Borg stopped playing at 25. How many Slams would Sampras have won if he quit at 25?

Following this line of logic, then the best player ever was Rod Laver. He missed all the years of his career between 1962 - 1969. How many Slams would Sampras have won if you subtract seven years from the prime of his career?

Tennis Fool
08-10-2004, 12:30 AM
To me personally, I think Borg's record of winning 3 Wimbledon - RG back2back has to be considered more than Sampras' 7 Wimbledons. Ok its only my opinion, but to be able to adjust in such a short space of time from clay to grass is amazing. Sampras won the majority of his titles on fast surfaces, but people seem to actually ignore the fact he wasn't that great on clay. I can't ignore that fact, the best player ever should have been the best at that particular time on all surfaces.

Why do you think Sampras had such a hard time on clay?

WyveN
08-10-2004, 12:51 AM
To me personally, I think Borg's record of winning 3 Wimbledon - RG back2back has to be considered more than Sampras' 7 Wimbledons. Ok its only my opinion, but to be able to adjust in such a short space of time from clay to grass is amazing. Sampras won the majority of his titles on fast surfaces, but people seem to actually ignore the fact he wasn't that great on clay. I can't ignore that fact, the best player ever should have been the best at that particular time on all surfaces.

Except Borg never won a hardcourt slam. No one has had repeated, consistent success on grass, hardcourts and clay so Sampras's lack of success there does not really count against him unless someone at the very least wins 2 slams on each surface.

WyveN
08-10-2004, 12:52 AM
Plus Borg stopped playing at 25. How many Slams would Sampras have won if he quit at 25?

Following this line of logic, then the best player ever was Rod Laver. He missed all the years of his career between 1962 - 1969. How many Slams would Sampras have won if you subtract seven years from the prime of his career?

How many slams would Sampras win if 3 out of the 4 slams were on grass like in the Laver era?

wraith
08-10-2004, 01:12 AM
How many slams would Sampras win if 3 out of the 4 slams were on grass like in the Laver era?

Possibly fewer than he ended up with. That's crazy, you say? Not at all. Here's why....

More grasscourt events would encourage more players to develop a grasscourt game. So few players can play on grass that only a few each year have a realistic chance of winning Wimbledon. And the grasscourt season is so short that many don't even bother trying to learn how to play on the stuff....

Therefore, three out of four grasscourt Slams doesn't necessarily translate into more Slams for Sampras because there would be so much more depth on the tour in players' grasscourt ability. So, it's possible that he may not even have won his seven Majors on that surface.

Ferrero Forever
08-10-2004, 08:16 AM
i voted other

TangyLovesDaveed
08-10-2004, 08:24 AM
i voted other

No, other does not mean that this a vote for Ferrero.

Ferrero Forever
08-10-2004, 08:54 AM
who said that i was referring to ferrero?

Crazy_Fool
08-10-2004, 09:46 AM
Why do you think Sampras had such a hard time on clay?
He was too reliant on his serve for one, his game was based alot round that. Then he was never gonna consistently put together 20 rallies or more all the time, which is what you have to do on clay, he never had the patience.

Crazy_Fool
08-10-2004, 09:47 AM
who said that i was referring to ferrero?
Are you gonna let us know who then?!

Crazy_Fool
08-10-2004, 09:49 AM
Except Borg never won a hardcourt slam. No one has had repeated, consistent success on grass, hardcourts and clay so Sampras's lack of success there does not really count against him unless someone at the very least wins 2 slams on each surface.
Oh, ok i get your point, tough one this then....

Ferrero Forever
08-10-2004, 10:12 AM
Are you gonna let us know who then?!
i was thinking along the lines of federer, i think he has the potential to be one of the best tennis players ever, i don't know many of the oldies, so therefore in my opinion it's federer. ferrero is just my all time favourite, i think he's probably the greatest clay player ever, but not on all surfaces. I do think roger has more skill than ferrero, even though i definetly prefer ferrero more.

Crazy_Fool
08-10-2004, 10:15 AM
i was thinking along the lines of federer, i think he has the potential to be one of the best tennis players ever, i don't know many of the oldies, so therefore in my opinion it's federer. ferrero is just my all time favourite, i think he's probably the greatest clay player ever, but not on all surfaces. I do think roger has more skill than ferrero, even though i definetly prefer ferrero more.
True that Federer has potential, but you can't say he's the greatest of all time yet, he's only won 3 slams.

And JC as well on clay, i think he'll win at least 3 more RG titles...

Ferrero Forever
08-10-2004, 10:20 AM
JC will definetly win a lot more titles, and hopefully a hardcourt slam as well. Well he has been close, i mean he's been a finalist at the USO.

Lalitha
08-10-2004, 10:35 AM
No one close to Pete Sampras, as of now.

jtipson
08-10-2004, 10:40 AM
Except Borg never won a hardcourt slam. No one has had repeated, consistent success on grass, hardcourts and clay so Sampras's lack of success there does not really count against him unless someone at the very least wins 2 slams on each surface.

<cough, cough> Wilander - 2 grass, 3 clay, 2 hardcourt.

But Sampras' sheer number of slam titles and weeks at number one would still win in my opinion.

J. Corwin
08-10-2004, 10:54 AM
Wilander has won slams on grass?? Since when?

And yes, I agree with you that the sheer number of slams and years ending number one would still be greater.

jtipson
08-10-2004, 10:55 AM
Australian Open, 1983 and 1984.

J. Corwin
08-10-2004, 10:57 AM
Ok, then I think WyveN meant for a player to win each slam twice.

*SKYE*
08-10-2004, 11:59 AM
sampras... who else

WyveN
08-10-2004, 01:48 PM
<cough, cough> Wilander - 2 grass, 3 clay, 2 hardcourt.

But Sampras' sheer number of slam titles and weeks at number one would still win in my opinion.

But never went beyond quarters at Wimbledon where the grass court standard was at its peak

FryslanBoppe
08-11-2004, 06:18 AM
But never went beyond quarters at Wimbledon where the grass court standard was at its peak

It rained more at Wimbledon, and the courts in Australia bounced more for Wilander, that in addition to he didn't like Wimbledon and that after the two he won on grass there, Edberg and Becker emerged as well as you mentioned earlier.

Rex
08-11-2004, 07:15 AM
a cliche ,but no doubt its sampras by the longest way!

Sandra
08-11-2004, 02:55 PM
i voted other i think ilie nastase was the best player ever