Most talented player in history

[MrLutareio]

It's a no brainer: Federer. There's absolutely nothing to debate.

[BlackKnight]

In terms of talent, I'd say Federer is the GOAT. He has the greatest forehand and greatest one-handed backhand in history. He's a great volleyer and his serve is extremely underrated. 2nd place would be McEnroe.

However, if you include athleticism and IQ, Nadal is definitely in the conversation.

[Dr Positivity]

A lot of Nadal's trophies came after Federer's peak.

I agree Nadal is still super impressive, sorry I didn't mean to undermine any of his achievements.

I just think the matches we would have with them being the same age throughout their careers are more close and not so heavily in Nadal's favor (but still probably with him having the edge) is a mouthwatering prospect.

Federer did peak before Nadal though. Him winning again after 09 is a testament to his legacy.
It's both fortunate and unfortunate that two of the GOATs played in the same era.

Fortunate because of some of the games we saw.
Unfortunate because the records are going to be lower than they could have been.
Unfortunate because of the age difference they had.

The only reason Nadal had more trophies after what you call Federers peak was because A. Nadal was just coming through (still won around 5 or 6) and B. the time span was less.
I hate to say this as I rate federer on top or atleast can accept someone saying it. But what was federer's peak? when he was facing an 18 yr old nadal? playing against the likes of Hewitt and a 34 year old agassi? (i.e probably one of the weakest eras in awhile).
I will say this. in my honest opinion, if you got Nadal , federer, Djoker and Murray at the same age. The guy who loses out the most is Federer. He "stat padded" (im saying this with the least disrespect as possible) aHis initial grand slams.

I don't know, it could also go the other way. Nadal, Djokovic and Murray have 14 combined Aussie, Wimbledon or US Open from 2008 on. What if they had to go through peak Fed for those?

[Raps in 4]

Federer has been unlucky due to peaking before Nadal.

God I wish they were around the same age.

i find this very disrespectful to nadal.
Nadal beat Federer at his peak and took control of wimbledon and the aussie open while federer was at his peak.

to highlight that federer was still at his peak. in '09 when nadal goes out injured. federer starts winning again. so i do not see how you can say federer peaked before nadal. nadal was just that good.

as the most talented player...
probably federer or borg.

A lot of Nadal's trophies came after Federer's peak.

But Nadal had to contend with a prime Djokovic and Murray after Federer dropped off a bit. Federer had no such competition for at least 4 of his slams.

He won 4 slams before Nadal became an elite player
He won 9 slams before Djokovic became an elite player
He won 12 slams before Murray became an elite player

Nadal had to win all of his 14 slams against one or more of a prime Federer, Djokovic, or Murray.

[Ong_dynasty]

I mean I understand the love for Nadal.

I think out of Djoker, Nadal and Federer.

Federer was the only one who was able to gain grand slams in a weak era. That is a fact..
Nadal had to go through Federer and then Djoker.
Djoker has to go through Nadal and Federer.
While fed had a few years with who? Lleyton hewitt and an mid 30's agassi?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer

I mean look at his grand slam wins.
The 1st 12. where with guys who wont be remembered (well now) or a very young nadal or djokovic.

[Doctor MJ]

Guess I'm on a kick here.

I'll say up front that considering the degree of difficulty of any given era is a good thing, but when doing it we should go deep into every aspect of it.

One way that you need to look at it is from a perspective of controls. If we can simplify the ATP landscape down to each player being better or worse than the rest, and the better you are the more likely you are to win, then we ought to be able to say who the best player between the top players based on how they did against everyone not in that group. (I know there are rebuttals here, this isn't the whole story, but this is one thing that needs to be looked at.).

So this is the Big 4 era, here are examples of how the dominant 3 did in signature years controlling for each other:

2006 Federer (3 majors): 88-0 (9 matches against Big 4)
2010 Nadal (3 majors): 66-7 (8 matches against Big 4)
2011 Djokovic (3 majors): 58-4 (14 matches against Big 4)

Now - it's tough choosing the Nadal year, so if someone wants to analyze several of them that's cool. I think it's pretty obvious up front that none of them are going to come out looking like Federer in 2006, and picking Nadal's lone 3 major year hardly feels like cherry picking.

Things to note:
1. Obviously Federer has way fewer losses, since he has none.
2. Also obvious, he has way more wins. It's important to note here that the nature of having a "Big 4" dominate so thoroughly is that you don't face them until the very end. So, even if for arguments' sake Federer were weaker than Nadal and spotty against prime Djokovic and Murray, his win totals would still absolutely destroy the other two because of the other side of consistent domination: Not-losing to the lower tier guys means you have to play again, and again, and again.
3. Interesting that Federer played as much against the Big 4 as Nadal did in his year. Even rougher, he played Nadal again and again on clay. I would submit to the group that when you consider that, it's hardly clear cut that his "Big 4" experience in 2006 was any softer than Nadal's in 2010.

What all of that hopefully shows is that beyond all doubt: Federer was a more consistent elite player than any of the rest of the Big 4 at least at peak (similar trends follow in other years which is why he had that basically unbreakable semi-finals streak).

This of course does not mean that the other guys at their best weren't better than Federer at their best. That's something to be argued. However it's not a fluke that Federer put himself in the position to win again and again and again.

What's more, the thing is that there's nothing really weird about the other guys here. That's how tennis works! You don't win every match. When guys get old for example, you can tell not because they never win again but because they seem to disappear for longer and longer stretches between their great runs, and during their late great runs people say "Wow, he looks just like he used to!". And sure maybe they exaggerate a bit, but y'know there's a lot of truth to what they are saying. What makes the best tennis players in the world the best is not who reaches the highest zone, but who gets to their zone consistently.

Federer was 88-0 against everyone but the Big 4 one season (and really that's largely just losing to the GOAT clay court player), and that just doesn't happen in tennis. It's that combined with the career totals that make his GOAT case really unassailable to me at this point.

If Rafa can keep racking up the slams, he'll eventually have my vote, but I tell ya, short of him showing consistent domination like what I'm talking about here, even then his GOAT peak candidacy will be debatable to me.

[UN-Owen]

Where does Jimmy Connors fall in this discussion?

He's got an impressive resume

[40yards]

there are so many types of talents and you can't give a clear answer, we can talk about athletic talent of rafa or about style of mcenroe……so many types of talents to give only one answer

[Latrell]

No love for Ilie Nestase?