Originally Posted by Litotes
I'm not desperate to keep Federer on top, but that's where he is now. If someone passes him, fine, but it won't be Connors who's long since retired. Connors simply didn't win enough important tournaments and didn't beat enough good players in the tournaments he did win. Sure, he's got good wins like the one time he beat Borg at 22, but others have more. So I rank him 6th in the Open era, if we disregard the players straddling both eras, behind Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Borg and Lendl.
Oh how generous of you to award Connors 6th place.
This study has nothing to do with me, but let me repeat its not who won the most slams. It's taking the total player into consideration. And in doing so Connors and Borg come out on top.
I don't PERSONALLY agree with it. I'm passing on the article I found on the subject. Federer is the man for the time being. But it's now a fragile lead. At worst Nadal will match it in the next five years. I can see two more French opens and one more Hard court slam coming from him when his body and mind are as one.
Then is will simply come down to tournament wins. And we may still not be able to say Nadal is a clear GOAT. But neither will we be able to say Federer is either. That's the interesting part.
Because when you have two players with the same slam count. And this player has things that player doesn't have and vice versa. It will all be opinion. If Nadal reaches 18 then that will be something else again. We have five years to find out.