Well yeah he has obviously earned plenty. But across all sorts the prize money rises year on year. So the later you started the better.
16 yr olds break through to footy teams and earn more than players who retired 10 years ago.
Well yeah he has obviously earned plenty. But across all sorts the prize money rises year on year. So the later you started the better.
16 yr olds break through to footy teams and earn more than players who retired 10 years ago.
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
That’s Djokovic up to 16 now , won 4 of the last 5 , can see him ending up with more than Federer and for me it’s a big shame that he is never mentioned in the talk of the GOAT , he may not be as a classy as Federer but he is superb and imo a bit more exciting and seems to enjoy it more.
MegaSteve
Tour Winner
I am not yet ready to acknowledge Rog as GOAT...
Djoko isn't even on my radar yet 😉...
I think he may well win more. Would have loved all three of them to have been around at precisely the same time.
Then all overlapping meant he won a fair few when it appeared Fed and Rafa were starting to fall away (albeit they won a few recently). That's not a criticism of how good he blatantly is.
I think Fed is the purest fav. He has the titles currently, as well as the style. Djokovic and Nadal both get tainted as Serena does based on their style.
Not sure Djorkovic will ever be regarded as the best of all time. I feel, wrongly, that his public persona counts against him. Definitely one of the very best the game has ever seen though
Wolf
Well-known member
Not sure how anyone can say that it's not Roger. Considering he has the most slams. Then it has to be Nadal followed by Novak.
I think though if current trend continues Rafa will equal the overall number Federer has especially with his clay court dominance. But I think Novak will likely surpass both even if only by 1. Whether people like him or not then he has to be the GOAT. But Federer will likely always win the people's vote.
Slightly older generations may hold Borg, Connors or someone of that ilk in higher regard but imo you have to go with who won the most big titles.
MegaSteve
Tour Winner
As you will find out as you get older... It's harder to let go of your heros from your younger days... So, I am still sticking with Rod Laver...
I'm not that young lol
And I fully agree re nostalgia Which is why Matthew Le Tissier is my favourite footballer of all time, but favorite and best is a different thing imo.
That said. Never saw Laver so can't comment on his game so can only base my opinion on the facts I can look up. Must admit I'd think it's hard to argue a player with just over half the majors of another is better....
But concede I've not seen his game so unable to compare.
I'd generally agree, over the course if history. Total wins is the only real decider. But that can only be used when the wins were 2/3 generations past as people around during any top players career will likely have a favourite and will have their opinion clouded.
MegaSteve
Tour Winner
Laver had a 'broken career'... Starting off as an amateur then turning pro which barred him from playing in the 'slams'... By the time the sport became 'open' he was probably past his best...
I heard them on the TV talking about Laver the other day. They mentioned he was on the edge of the professional/ amateur era so couldn't play in the full number of grand slams he could otherwise have done. Before my time as well but tennis pros have a huge amount if respect for him as being special.
That's fair enough and I respect that those that saw him play may well rate him, but unfortunately for those sportsman that played prior to wall to wall coverage as generations pass their exploits will lose wirght if they've not got the records to compete.
MegaSteve
Tour Winner
Sands of time will see Laver's record being overlooked and currently Federer has to be the most likely to be used as the measure for a few decades to come...
D
Deleted member 1418
Guest
A great final but not the best ever. Borg v McEnroe, Rafter Ivanisevic, Federer Roddick, Federer Nadal all better finals.
Fully agree. Borg before me. But the others you mention I'd rate them much better.
Fed Nadal the greatest of all time for me. Second best could arguably be the tussle the they had the year prior. 2 of the greatest of all time at their peak going toe to toe.
Slime
Tour Winner
Please can we not have yet another GOAT dispute that'll go on for days.
We all know, across all sports, that it's impossible to agree on a definitive answer and that the thread will undoubtedly end in a childish bickerfest.
Oh, except for football where we all know the GOAT is Cristiano Ronaldo.
We all know, across all sports, that it's impossible to agree on a definitive answer and that the thread will undoubtedly end in a childish bickerfest.
Oh, except for football where we all know the GOAT is Cristiano Ronaldo.
Please can we not have yet another GOAT dispute that'll go on for days.
We all know, across all sports, that it's impossible to agree on a definitive answer and that the thread will undoubtedly end in a childish bickerfest.
Oh, except for football where we all know the GOAT is Cristiano Ronaldo.
I thought it was being pretty amicable.
And we’ve already covered that Le Tiss was the best..... 😉
U
User62651
Guest
Re GOAT, there is clear bias towards Fed from UK people simply because of Wimbledon, it's the only tennis tournament a lot of non-tennis people tune into here.
Djokovic is primarily a hard courts specialist, so US and Australian Opens suit his game more.
Fed is very much a grass specialist.
Ivan Lendl was a top player and won 8 grand slams at 3 venues but not Wimbledon as grass didn't suit him. John McEnroe only won 7 grand slams at 2 venues but three of those were wimbledon titles so he gets the plaudits here. Who was really the better player though?
Djokovic is primarily a hard courts specialist, so US and Australian Opens suit his game more.
Fed is very much a grass specialist.
Ivan Lendl was a top player and won 8 grand slams at 3 venues but not Wimbledon as grass didn't suit him. John McEnroe only won 7 grand slams at 2 venues but three of those were wimbledon titles so he gets the plaudits here. Who was really the better player though?
Excellent post and you are spot on to highlight UK bias surrounding Wimbledon winners. Jimmy Connors won 8 Grand Slams, 1 more than McEnroe, 2 more than Becker, yet because 5 were US Opens he never gets mentioned in the same breath over here.
One point to raise, the bold bit. Going on that does it not make it more remarkable that Djokovic has now won 5 Wimbledons?