RealGM

Which player had the greatest tennis talent ever?
Nominees (open era):
McEnroe
Borg
Sampras
Agassi
Becker
Nadal
Federer

It's a fun question, but a tough one.

When we look at our two biggies of this era, Fed & Rafa, to me it seems reasonable to say they basically max'ed out their talent. We can talk about how Fed would be if he were as mentally tough as Rafa, but that's a talent like anything else.

To this point, I consider Federer the clear GOAT, so putting aside guys in progress like Rafa, the question becomes, who might have out-GOATed Fed if not for issues?

I don't think Sampras really has a case. I think he max'ed out everything he did too.

I think your mention of Mac & Borg first makes a lot of sense. There you have guys who just clearly had weird career curves where it's easy to imagine things going a bit differently in some other context. Still, since I rank Federer's GOAT year ahead of either of them, I can't give them the nod over him.

Agassi? Well hear you have a guy who repeatedly fell off the mark. It's just a part of his personality. You have to expect it would basically always happen.

Becker? Love him, but to me it was telling once Sampras really got on the scene.

Going back into history, guys like Laver & Rosewall should be thought about, but it's just hard to see these clay-dominant stars as the equal of Nadal.

I'll end with the same guy I ended my answer in the last thread: Pancho Gonzales is the big "what if". This guy might have been an amped up Pete Sampras. I don't feel comfortable giving him the nod, but he deserve mention.

My top 5:
1. McEnroe
2. Borg
3.Federer
4.Sampras
5.Nadal

Doctor MJ wrote:It's a fun question, but a tough one.

When we look at our two biggies of this era, Fed & Rafa, to me it seems reasonable to say they basically max'ed out their talent. We can talk about how Fed would be if he were as mentally tough as Rafa, but that's a talent like anything else.

To this point, I consider Federer the clear GOAT, so putting aside guys in progress like Rafa, the question becomes, who might have out-GOATed Fed if not for issues?

I don't think Sampras really has a case. I think he max'ed out everything he did too.

I think your mention of Mac & Borg first makes a lot of sense. There you have guys who just clearly had weird career curves where it's easy to imagine things going a bit differently in some other context. Still, since I rank Federer's GOAT year ahead of either of them, I can't give them the nod over him.

Agassi? Well hear you have a guy who repeatedly fell off the mark. It's just a part of his personality. You have to expect it would basically always happen.

Becker? Love him, but to me it was telling once Sampras really got on the scene.

Going back into history, guys like Laver & Rosewall should be thought about, but it's just hard to see these clay-dominant stars as the equal of Nadal.

I'll end with the same guy I ended my answer in the last thread: Pancho Gonzales is the big "what if". This guy might have been an amped up Pete Sampras. I don't feel comfortable giving him the nod, but he deserve mention.

Good explanation. Agassi in tennis is basically Shaq or Wilt in basketball, but lack of mentality. like you mentioned, its lack of specific talent too.

Didn't Bjorg win French and Wimbledon titles in the same calender year like 3 times? I think that's a very rare feat to be able to adapt from one surface to another within a span of 2 weeks between tournaments. Other than that its hard to look past Federer imo. He had the most impressive career arc in terms of evolving his game as well as being consistently dominant in slams.

SlavaMedvedenko wrote:Didn't Bjorg win French and Wimbledon titles in the same calender year like 3 times? I think that's a very rare feat to be able to adapt from one surface to another within a span of 2 weeks between tournaments. Other than that its hard to look past Federer imo. He had the most impressive career arc in terms of evolving his game as well as being consistently dominant in slams.

Yup. I was absolutely in awe of his Channel Slams until the most recent era. Not that I'm not impressed any more, but he doesn't stand out so singularly. Still pretty easy to think of him as more talented than someone like Sampras who had a more specialized game.

Doctor MJ wrote:

SlavaMedvedenko wrote:Didn't Bjorg win French and Wimbledon titles in the same calender year like 3 times? I think that's a very rare feat to be able to adapt from one surface to another within a span of 2 weeks between tournaments. Other than that its hard to look past Federer imo. He had the most impressive career arc in terms of evolving his game as well as being consistently dominant in slams.

Yup. I was absolutely in awe of his Channel Slams until the most recent era. Not that I'm not impressed any more, but he doesn't stand out so singularly.

I think the Channel Slam is less impressive in the current era, but I don’t think that diminishes Borg’s accomplishment. You’re talking about apples and oranges. Borg moving from slow clay to slick grass using a wooden racquet and gut strings, while having to play a vastly different style is completely different than the relatively easy transition guys today have to make. Lighter racquets, poly strings, and slower courts make all the difference. IMO this doesn’t cheapen Borg’s accomplishment, it highlights it.

oberyn3 wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:

SlavaMedvedenko wrote:Didn't Bjorg win French and Wimbledon titles in the same calender year like 3 times? I think that's a very rare feat to be able to adapt from one surface to another within a span of 2 weeks between tournaments. Other than that its hard to look past Federer imo. He had the most impressive career arc in terms of evolving his game as well as being consistently dominant in slams.

Yup. I was absolutely in awe of his Channel Slams until the most recent era. Not that I'm not impressed any more, but he doesn't stand out so singularly.

I think the Channel Slam is less impressive in the current era, but I don’t think that diminishes Borg’s accomplishment. You’re talking about apples and oranges. Borg moving from slow clay to slick grass using a wooden racquet and gut strings, while having to play a vastly different style is completely different than the relatively easy transition guys today have to make. Lighter racquets, poly strings, and slower courts make all the difference. IMO this doesn’t cheapen Borg’s accomplishment, it highlights it.

A good point. I'll fill out my statement a bit more:

Before Borg, winning majors on grass & clay was quite normal. The stars of the '60s certainly did it. Borg stands out then because he's a bit removed from those guys, he was the last for a long time to do it, and because did it consistently.

And that's a big deal no doubt, however it does seem pretty clear that the new racket technology that arrived as Borg exited has everything to do with why the versatility stopped. The extreme power of the tech is what created extreme specialization in the first place, so in many ways the later changes beyond that gave us something like a return to normalcy. Not entirely obviously - serve & volley isn't what it was before - but we now exist in a game where surface versatility for players seems relatively similar to how it was in the days of wooden rackets even if their actual technical approach is less varied.

Essentially what I'm saying then is that as impressive as it was for Borg to win the channel slam repeatedly, I don't think it makes sense to compare him to guys from the '90s and tout his clear superiority based on this simply because it's not a apples-to-apples comparison.

Federer has been unlucky due to peaking before Nadal.

God I wish they were around the same age.

I think, Roger Federer is the most talented tennis player in the history of the world

Good list....

Lendl. An oversight? Or just honourable mention???

(To me, he has a better resume than Agassi or Becker, and maybe others. Am I wrong?)

SharoneWright wrote:Good list....

Lendl. An oversight? Or just honourable mention???

(To me, he has a better resume than Agassi or Becker, and maybe others. Am I wrong?)

I think Lendl is typically seen as someone who max'ed out his talent much more so than most. With Agassi in particular it's clear he left a lot of major titles on the table due to his periodic meltdowns.

I don't think I'd have a problem though saying Lendl was at least the equal in talent of Becker. Becker was the most impressive 17 year old player I've ever seen, but that's because he matured physically early. To me it was telling seeing Sampras come along while Becker was still in his prime and seeing Sampras do so much more with the same type of game.

Doctor MJ wrote:

SharoneWright wrote:Good list....

Lendl. An oversight? Or just honourable mention???

(To me, he has a better resume than Agassi or Becker, and maybe others. Am I wrong?)

I think Lendl is typically seen as someone who max'ed out his talent much more so than most. With Agassi in particular it's clear he left a lot of major titles on the table due to his periodic meltdowns.

I don't think I'd have a problem though saying Lendl was at least the equal in talent of Becker. Becker was the most impressive 17 year old player I've ever seen, but that's because he matured physically early. To me it was telling seeing Sampras come along while Becker was still in his prime and seeing Sampras do so much more with the same type of game.

Good point. I think Lendl himself contributed to this perception during his playing days. The idea that he was the hardest worker out there, always in peak condition, etc. was part of his “aura”. It also didn’t hurt that McEnroe made comments that he had more talent in his pinky than Lendl had in his entire body. The reality, of course, is that Lendl was extremely talented and McEnroe wasn’t as adverse to physical fitness during his heyday as he now likes to pretend.

I definitely agree with you about Becker, too.

Other people would know more about this than me, but why not, Federer/Nadal #1/#2

Dr Positivity wrote:Other people would know more about this than me, but why not, Federer/Nadal #1/#2

I think with Nadal's resurgence and the seeming cement of Djokovic as the tertiary rival, basically all lists will talk about Federer & Nadal at the top, with the #1 going to whoever ends up accomplishing the most.

Nadal is only 3 slams away but his body is more liable to break down sooner. It's amazing that the average retirement age for men's tennis hasn't gotten past 30 for so long.

Andre3822 wrote: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.

Ong_dynasty wrote:

Andre3822 wrote: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.

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.

Andre3822 wrote: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 really think Nadal's athletism means the most talent