1 2 3

Latest News and Commentary

Tennis – Who is the Greatest of All Time?

Written on May 27, 2010 at 11:12, by HTTN

fedusopen

Upon capturing Wimbledon in 2009, Roger Federer surpassed Pete Sampras’ record of 14 Grand Slam championships, and he was crowned by many as the greatest of all time.

Is that the end of the argument – most titles = best ever?  Is Henri Richard the best hockey player ever, with his 11 Stanley Cups? Is Bill Russell the best basketball player ever, with his 11 NBA Championships? Of course not! There’s more to it than the numbers.

Comparing champions from different eras is no easy task. In addition to titles, we must consider the quality of opponents, the dominance of the player in question, his skill set, and of course longevity.

The question is, if all of the greatest were able to play each other at their peaks, who would consistently come out on top?

Pete Sampras:

Pete Sampras played during a period of tennis greatness, featuring some of the all-time best in Ivan Lendl, Boris Becker, John McEnroe, Mats Wilander, Jim Courier, and Andre Agassi.  His dominance of the sport during such a competetive stretch makes his achievements even more impressive.

Agassi was Sampras’ greatest rival during the time, and is still considered as the samprasagassi1best returner the game has ever seen.  But Sampras boasted the decided edge over his hairless foe, holding a 6-3 advantage in Grand Slam matches.

Known to his fans as “Pistol Pete”, the nickname was due to his undeniable power.  It was most notable on his serve, which is still the best tennis has ever seen.  The combination of power and placement, combined with consistency made him unbreakable.  His ability to serve with the same ferocity on second serves, especially during the biggest points, was what truly separated him.

This is not to say that Sampras’ game was not a complete one.  It was – he would never have beaten Agassi without it.  But with such a perfect serve, it’s hard to believe that any player in any era could ever have broken Sampras consistently – and if you can’t break a player’s serve, it’s pretty damn impossible to defeat him.

Roger Federer

Roger Federer’s claim to the throne is based on his 16 Grand Slam titles, which is the most ever.  It has also been said that he possesses best all around game ever, combining speed, finesse, and skill.  Perhaps his greatest asset over the years has been his mental toughness – Federer has an ability to grind out matches and outlast opponents, even when the odds are completely against him.

Sampras’ retirement in 2002 left a void in tennis that needed to be filled.  Federer won most of his titles during this lull, and until Rafael Nadal learned to play on surfaces other than clay in 2008, his competition was pretty bland – including players such as Lleyton Hewitt, Marat Safin, and Andy Roddick.

Then there’s Nadal, Federer’s adversary.  Federer’s record in head-to-head matchups against Nadal is 7-14 – decidedly lopsided to Rafa.  In order to claim to be the best, one should be able to beat the best, and Roger has failed in that regard.

Rod Laver

Who’s that, you ask? Back when he was playing, digital rodlaver1cameras didn’t have a “colour” option in the function menu.

Despite the tough times in photography, the Australian was a dominant force in tennis.  Unfortunately, he played most of his career during a transition period for tennis and his numbers were affected because of it.

Consider that Rod Laver won the calendar grand slam as an amateur in 1962 – winning all four tournaments in one year – the year before he turned pro and was ineligible to play in Major tournaments. In 1968 the “Open Era” began, allowing professionals to play in Grand Slam tournaments, and Laver won all four again in 1969.

One can see that his total of 11 titles is not even close to what he could have achieved in the current system.  If he had won an average of 2 per year over those 5 years of his prime – a conservative estimate – Laver would have claim to 21 Grand Slam titles, and Federer would still be looking up at the record.

Rafael Nadal

OK, so Nadal probably shouldn’t be included on this list just nadal1yet, as he has yet to prove that he can sustain his current level of play.  He is Federer’s number 1 opponent, and has so far dominated the Swiss star when both are playing their best.

At nearly the age of 24, he already holds 6 Grand Slam titles. For comparison, at the same age, Federer had 5.  The difference – Nadal has done it during the Federer era, while Federer won his first four titles after Sampras retired and before Nadal arrived.

For Nadal, it’s all about consistency – can his body hold up for 5 more years so he can continue to pile up the wins, or has the excessive mileage already caught up to him?

Conclusion

So seriously, who’s the best? Which player would come out on top in a four person tournament?

So far, Rafa has Fed’s number – we know that at the peak of their games, Nadal has the edge.  Of course, their careers are not yet close to over, so maybe Federer has a chance to even it up.

What about Sampras?  The greatest returner ever in tennis – Agassi, could never out-finesse him; Pistol Pete’s power and will were overwhelming.  Could Nadal possibly do it?  Certainly on the slow clay surface, Nadal would dominate, but on the faster surfaces of the US Open and Wimbledon, it’s hard to believe anyone could overpower Sampras, in any era.

And what about our colourless friend, Rod Laver?  Based on coolness points alone, he dominates anyone in any era. He and his sweater vest would beat any of these pretenders, wooden racket in hand.

  • Arandam

    Tennis is not a team sport. So, if a tennis player has won the most titles has a little more weight than it would were it a hockey or basketball player. Nevertheless, my vote is for Sampras.

  • http://www.xnrblog.com/federer-advances-at-french-open.html Federer advances at French Open | World Cup 2010

    [...] Tennis – Who is the Greatest of All Time? | Head To The Net [...]

  • Glen

    Agree with Arandam. You bring up good points but your original hockey/basketball argument is essentially irrelevant. Which is why Gretzky/Lemieux – Jordan/Kobe are considered to be the best players of their sport despite not having the same amount of championships.

    I find that through generations, athletes always are a step up on the previous generation. I find it hard to believe that other current top 10 players couldn’t compete with the greats of the 80s/90s. Therefore Federer’s dominance is even more impressive considering he is playing amazing competition, but because of his domination, they are underrated.

    The stat that Nadal has such a great record against Federer was pretty surprising, but Nadal will never be the best because he’ll be retired by the time he’s 29. Knees don’t get better.

    Was never a sampras fan so maybe I’m biased but I think Federer is the best we’ve ever seen.

  • http://www.xnrblog.com/federer-advances-to-third-round.html Federer advances to third round | World Cup 2010

    [...] Tennis – Who is the Greatest of All Time? | Head To The Net [...]

  • PB

    Your argument is verrrrrrryyy weak at best. I concur, the comparison with team sport champions is entirely irrelevant. A far better example would be to compare first on tape a detailed analysis of how a player overall would, and did perform in a variety of situations. How his shotmaking would come into play, etc., especially in the major tournaments. For example, in Wimbledon 2009, Federer on numerous points did handle Roddick’s serve, a comparable one to Sampras. Did Sampras always beat a great player in finals during his run?? I think not. Check the records. Sampras was simply dominant, like Federer. Could Federer’s serve match Sampras? Yes, check most of his performances when he has to come up with big serves, and he does. Also, Sampras was never that competitive in Roland Garros–no finals even. But even my argument is not conclusive. To fully analyze the greats would take too much space. I believe, up to now, considering the total player Federer has become, proficient in every shotmaking category, that play him 1000 times against all the greats of the past, and he’ll have the most victories.

  • http://headtothe.net HTTN

    Great comments, PB.

    Absolutely right that Federer would beat Sampras on clay – he has worked very hard to become decent on the surface, something Sampras was never willing to do.

    On the other surfaces, in the end it might come down to competitiveness, and in that regard the two greatest have to be Sampras and Federer. Who would show greater resolve in the pressure points? Unpredictable really!

  • http://www.xnrblog.com/who-will-get-the-get-the-golden-shoe-award-this-time-in-the-world-cup.html Who will get the get the golden shoe award this time in the WOrld Cup? | World Cup 2010

    [...] Tennis – Who is the Greatest of All Time? | Head To The Net [...]

  • Dennis

    Rafael Nadal is and will be the greatest of all time not
    Federer. You can not be the greatest of all time if you
    Can’t beat another player during your time, period.

  • http://headtothe.net HTTN

    I agree with your point. Still, Nadal needs to sustain his level of play before we can give him such a title.

  • Brent

    “Could Federer’s serve match Sampras? Yes, check most of his performances when he has to come up with big serves, and he does. Also, Sampras was never that competitive in Roland Garros–no finals even.”

    Umm. Pete Sampras? No Federer’s serve does not not match Sampras’. Ever see Federer pull out those second serve Aces in clutch situations? No, you haven’t. And please don’t compare Roddick and Sampras. Seriously? Come on, man. That’s just weak.

    As for Roland Garros. I’m not sure if you know this or not, but the surface is considerably faster these days, so its hard to compare. Sampras may have done better on this particular version. Also, Nadal would’ve won if he wasn’t injured last year and you know this because he owns Federer on clay. Hell, he’s even beat the guy on his favorite surfaces for Grand Slams. The truth is that it’s impossible to determine the best ever because it’s so difficult to compare players from different eras. As for best of each era, Sampras was definitely the best of his and Laver his. Roger’s always struggled with Nadal (2-5) in GS Finals. Ouch. I personally think that Nadal may end up going on a killer run in the next few years, making himself clearly superior to Federer. He’s definitely going to face tougher competition over the next few years so it will be even more difficult than what Federer accomplished.

  • http://headtothe.net HTTN

    Brent, I agree with you. The “Nadal era”, however dominant it turns out to be, is going to be of much higher quality than Federer’s. Think of Federer’s main competition during his time – an old Andre Agassi, Lleyton Hewitt, Andy Roddick, Marat Safin – lame! Now look at who will be Nadal’s main rivals – Murray, Djokovic, Tsonga, and when they both get healthy, watch out for Del Potro and Verdasco.

  • Nick

    Dennis you are an absolute joke. Federer has beaten Nadal 7 times if you aren’t blind. Nadal has a losing H2H record against Davydenko, where does that leave him? H2H means NOTHING. The titles you have, on the other hand, matter. Clearly no one says crap about Laver even though 3 out of the 4 Grand Slams were played on grass in his era. Fact is, Federer has 16 GS titles and has had 4 of the most dominating years in tennis history (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007) 3 of which had a Nadal.

    It is completely unfair that Federer gets most of his losses to Nadal on clay while Nadal was unable to make the same finals on the other surfaces to meet Federer. So when Federer was making all the those finals and Nadal lost in the QF/SF/etc, in a way shouldn’t that be a win for Federer because he made it further than Nadal at that tournament? That is very unfair to their H2H record which is why H2H doesn’t mean anything in terms of history. No one is complaining about Sampras’s H2H record against some individuals. Sampras was lucky there was no dominant clay courter in his era. Even if there was a dominant clay player in his time, he wouldn’t have played him anywhere near the amount of times Federer has played Nadal since Pete was clearly not good on clay.

  • Dario-c7

    then.. davydenko is better than nadal becose davydenko beat more times to nadal ..jaja” the man who have more grand slams ever is the gratest” .. PERIOD

  • Darla1029ac

    Oh really?? o__O

    Nadal is vulnerable on any surface other than clay. Look at his slam titles on hard court and grass… and he’s losing to opponents not named FEDERER. If Federer weren’t exist, Nadal would still lose to anybody outside clay!

    You must be joking if you think Nadal is more of GOAT candidate than Federer will be. What Federer had done during his period of dominance is unfathomable. We all should be thankful that we have a chance to witness such greatness (together with his rivalry with Nadal) while we’re still alive.