Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,068 Posts
Re: What it means to be "one of the greatest players of all time"?

Does it mean "all time great" or "GOAT candidate"?
"One of" implies part of a group, as does "players".

It implies "all time great", meaning you are in top ten of greatest players.

Just my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,089 Posts
Re: What it means to be "one of the greatest players of all time"?

"One of" implies part of a group, as does "players".

It implies "all time great", meaning you are in top ten of greatest players.

Just my opinion.
I agree! In no particular order: Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Budge, Tilden, Sampras, Federer, Borg, Nadal, Lendl with Djokovic getting very close.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
15,396 Posts
Does it mean "all time great" or "GOAT candidate"?
Means top 10 of all the time. So for example Djokovic is "one of the greatest players of all time" while Murray is not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,460 Posts
I would lean more towards 'all time great' rather than 'GOAT discussion', unless someone is purely outstanding in their own field like Donald Bradman, Phil Taylor, Michael Phelps and so on...

I think of Federer as the GOAT, but that's my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,210 Posts
Re: What it means to be "one of the greatest players of all time"?

I agree! In no particular order: Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Budge, Tilden, Sampras, Federer, Borg, Nadal, Lendl with Djokovic getting very close.
Connors, Agassi and McEnroe as well.
 

·
Onwards and Upwards!
Joined
·
46,453 Posts
It's fairly straightforward. If you have a slam tally nearing Roger Federer's then you can be considered one of the greats, but never THE great. Roger, Sampras, Nadal, Borg and Laver all have a slam tally over 10 so they'd be considered some of the greats. McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Lendl and Djokovic all have tallies under 10 but you can consider them mini-greats too based on their popularity and status, I suppose.

In other words you have to have a lot of slam titles, along with weeks at #1, lots of masters titles, a great win/loss ratio and a large title count in general.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,283 Posts
10+ Slams

Around 50 titles overall.

100+ weeks at #1
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,838 Posts
it means u are not the indisputable GOAT. One of =/= one and only!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,096 Posts
It means your greatness survives time, imo. The way people actually mean it is "up until now", but "all time" does not imply only that, but the future as well.

It's exactly why I don't understand why many one-time Major winners or even some multi-Major winners are called "all time greats". Over time, there will be *tons* of those. Just statistically speaking, even.

But over time, greats like Edberg, Fed, Nadal, Djokovic, Laver, Borg, Connors, etc. will continue to stand out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
218 Posts
It means your greatness survives time, imo. The way people actually mean it is "up until now", but "all time" does not imply only that, but the future as well.

It's exactly why I don't understand why many one-time Major winners or even some multi-Major winners are called "all time greats". Over time, there will be *tons* of those. Just statistically speaking, even.

But over time, greats like Edberg, Fed, Nadal, Djokovic, Laver, Borg, Connors, etc. will continue to stand out.
That's my opinion as well. As the generations go by there will be players winning slams and even multiple slams. The likes of Federer, Nadal, Borg, Sampras will always stand out due to their 10+ slam titles and exceptional statistics in titles, #1, etc.

IMO Agassi, McEnroe, Connors and that bunch are not all-time great players. Don't crucify me - it's just my opinion.

Not to go off topic but I think the Hall of Fame should make distinctions about this as well. Agassi and company are not on the level of Fedal/Sampras.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
923 Posts
Phrases that fanboys use to make their favorite players look better.

There's only one 'the best' and that's the one that matters. And that's Roger Federer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,210 Posts
That's my opinion as well. As the generations go by there will be players winning slams and even multiple slams. The likes of Federer, Nadal, Borg, Sampras will always stand out due to their 10+ slam titles and exceptional statistics in titles, #1, etc.

IMO Agassi, McEnroe, Connors and that bunch are not all-time great players. Don't crucify me - it's just my opinion.

Not to go off topic but I think the Hall of Fame should make distinctions about this as well. Agassi and company are not on the level of Fedal/Sampras.
Agassi is the only player to win every big title, and McEnroe dominated singles and doubles. They are. Connors is more debatable, but he did enough to be regarded as one imo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,096 Posts
That's my opinion as well. As the generations go by there will be players winning slams and even multiple slams. The likes of Federer, Nadal, Borg, Sampras will always stand out due to their 10+ slam titles and exceptional statistics in titles, #1, etc.

IMO Agassi, McEnroe, Connors and that bunch are not all-time great players. Don't crucify me - it's just my opinion.

Not to go off topic but I think the Hall of Fame should make distinctions about this as well. Agassi and company are not on the level of Fedal/Sampras.
Haha, I'm not going to crucify you, personally. I don't care as much about the distinction itself to really have issues with other people's selections if the reasoning is fair.

But I think in some cases, players do other things to distinguish themselves as well. Agassi is the perfect example because he won a Major on every surface (in a time when the field was highly specialized, no less) and an Olympic gold, for what it's worth. To a lesser extent, Mcenroe's 1984 will always be remembered as one of the best in tennis history, most-likely. While Connors has an extensive time at #1 and so many titles to his name. He also had a great Major count despite skipping the AO frequently, an event which he won and made the finals of in his lone appearances.

And the other thing is that if this trend continues of only one or a two dominant champions every generation (not to say that it will), then the amount of 6+ Major winners decades from now, for instance, still wouldn't be bloated. But yeah, certainly there's a distinction between guys like Fed/Sampras and ones like Agassi/Mcenroe.


Really off topic here, but a co-worker of mine used to be a pro at the HoF. It's hard to see them with such esteem after some of the stories he's told me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
904 Posts
Here is a comparison of the number of majors won, not counting the Australian Open which players in the 80s didn't often play. Laver and Rosewall were excluded from a number of majors before the start of the modern era.

Federer 13
Nadal 13
Sampras 12
Borg 11
Laver 8
McEnroe 7
Connors 7
Lendl 6
Newcombe 5
Agassi 4
Wilander 4
Edberg 4
Becker 4
Rosewall 4
Djokovic 3
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top