I've had some good debates (arguments ;)) about this at various times. I thought I'd open it up for debate on this board? Who is the greatest ever and why? I have a hard time picking one, myself, with Sampras, Laver, Borg, Connors, Agassi and others all having certain aspects of their record that stand out.

I have a feeling Federer will make a strong claim for that title in the end, but I think he needs a few more feathers in his cap first.

Of course, I'm talking about the men's side here, but if anyone wants to talk best ever among the women, feel free to throw that in as well, or start a separate thread for it.

I havent; voted for Mac, although his play to me is the greatest, his record has to be considered.

I decided to add Fed in there, for those of you who may think he's already earned the distinction.

Oh yeah, reasons - Borg mastered the two diametrically opposing surfaces which Sampras failedd to do as he was nto great on clay. Borg played in fewer slams than Samras, retiring early at about 25/6 and also not entering the AO when he was at his peak, so I do think there were more slams in him had he played more. Sampras on the other hand played until he'd just abotu had it (no disrespect). Borg also won his Wimbys and FOs consecutively, which is some achievement. There was also something about Borg that did loads to make the game popular. He was young and looked mro erock'n'roll than soem previosu players, and wa sa central part of the golden era and all it's great rivalries.

Have to say Laver, the ultimate Grand slam winner, as he won it twice. Sometimes i feel that record is over-looked by most...........

But remember, in that time, three of the four Slams were played on grass (not to diminish Laver's achievements, which are incredible). It's tougher to win the four Slams in 1 year when they are all on different surfaces.

Yep, which makes players like Lendl and Borg standout. A really tough debate this :lol:

I went for Laver

Sampras is my least favourite player out of those but i have voted for him because he always seemed unbeatable when i used to watch him

Hmm..

I'm thinking that the GOAT has to have a WOW!! factor, whether in terms of:

- Achievements
- Style of Play
- What they did for the sport in general.


For me, this whittles it down to possibly 3, and then 2. The one that I would discount for now would be Mr Federer. He has the wow! factor in terms of his style of play, and most likely also will have for his achievements. Contrary to what many might say, I still think of his game as a work in progress, and therefore cannot be included.. yet.

The two definites would be Laver and Borg. Laver had the wow! factor in terms of his all-court game, and certainly had a big part in changing how it was played with his wonderfully creative use of top spin. his achievements are phenomenal, and certainly fair to say that he would have won heaps more slams had he been allowed to continue playing them when he turned pro. He also had a professionalism and a determination that certainly became a model for many that followed him.

As for Mr Borg.. well, SB has covered this one very well..:ok: I would say that he was the player that made the biggest contribution to tennis becoming so popular in the 70s.. His achievements were phenomenal, esp for a baseliner playing on grass courts (for many, he 'was' Wimbledon in the 70's!), his fitness amazing, and he had that 'X' factor that made him larger than life. His calm demeanour was deceptive in terms of his passion for the sport. I keep meaning to get the book about his rivalry with McEnroe.. apparently during one match against Mac where Mac was playing up, he called Mac to the net. He then said something along the lines of the fact that they were playing fantastic tennis: and they should concentrate on enjoying the fact that they were bringing out the best in each other, and playing such fantastic tennis :)

So, Laver or Borg? It's a close call.. maybe it will go to a tie break in the 5th.. I'd opt for Laver as he was one-handed, and Borg two-handed.. I guess I've therefore gone for aesthetics to split the two, it's that close..:)

Delighted to see this debate on CC, after many months of bickering on the Beeb , (mainly about Sampras, it has to be said).
The problem seems to be, people cant agree about which criteria to judge the GOAT by and the whole thing often boils down to who your favourite player of all time is ;)
To do this fairly, you'd have to make a list of criteria such as numbers of Slams , dominance on different surfaces, weeks at no. 1 , h2h, even such things as aesthetic appeal, range of shots etc. and mark each player on a scale of say 1 to 5 .
Anyway,it wouldnt be easy , but I voted Laver as I think he would have more boxes ticked than any of the others. Even taking into account the strong era/ weak era and technological advances etc. etc. He still stands out .
More difficult to pick second place .Sampras sounds obvious, but he never won the French. :)

..and I didnt see Petalps post before typing mine, honest. :)

I reckon we should rank the main 8 in descending order of ow good they were at each particular skill; so there would be serve, forehand, backhand, volley, lob & Drop, then power, finesse


Then we rank them again, on abilty to keep calm, mental grit, mental strength.#

And then how good they were on each surface....


SO it could be Serve

1-Sampras-8pts
so on down to 8th which gets one point.......


:shrug: :shrug: we'd do each part together so that we all agree etc...

Earlier this year, I obtained all the Borg finals on DVD as well as the great McEnroe destruction of Connors from 1984. I love watching them, not least because they mostly have Dan Maskell's commentary which brings back happy memories (and because I love the fact he often doesn't feel the need to speak for entire games at a time, something I commend to all sports commentators!) But what I can't help noticing is just how different the game is.

I know it's a cliché but it really is very hard to compare Federer with even McEnroe 1984, let alone Borg in the 70s. The game was so much slower then, meaning the players have far more time to prepare for a shot. The volleying is far more enjoyable to watch in those days but the ball is so much more hittable. In a way, tennis from those days is a better game but what we see today is a far more remarkable and intense spectacle. In 1984, McEnroe hits a couple of fantastic backhand lobs and continually puts away Connor's donkey drop second serve. But compared to what Federer produced in the 3rd set against Ancic this Wimbledon, a match that may well be forgotten in a year's time, it is pretty pale. In one game of that match, Federer hits a drop shot off a 125 mph first serve, the next point he calmly returns an Ancic smash (too long but he controlled it), the next point he delivers a back hand block to a fierce forehand at a totally improbably angle that Ancic, to his credit, gets over the net only for Federer to volley it away in an open court. Next point sees Federer hit a backhand service return so hard Ancic doesn't even move and the final point is a fierce return to Ancic feet that Mario can't control. Much as I love the McEnroe Borg Connors era, it is impossible to deny the evidence of my own eyes, and there is no question that what Federer is producing week in, week out, is in a different league (fuelled by superior racket technology primarily but I'm not sure it isn't also because of superior reflexes, coordination and conditioning.) I don't feel I can extrapolate backwards or forwards to judge just how well Federer would fare with wooden rackets, or McEnroe with modern weapons.

What I do think we can talk meaningfully about are sporting merits: the ability to produce the best when under the greatest need to do so. The fifth set in 1980 proves, to my mind, that Borg was the greatest competitor I ever saw in tennis. Sampras is another example of a great competitor, and rather like Jack Nicklaus's putting in golf, Sampras was someone who might only hit a couple of really great returns in a match, but they would come precisely and reliably when he most needed them to win the match. As a returner generally though, I wouldn't rank him that highly but as someone able to return best when most needed, he is top draw.

Sorry if I'm rambling - another approach is this: surely the GOAT is the player you would chose to play a set tennis for you if your life depended on it. In that case, I would unhesistatingly plump for Borg in his era. However, I think my friends would enjoy my survival or death more if I selected Federer. But Borg gets my vote!

I think Laver, Borg and Sampras are the top 3 and its tough to pick one of them over the other 2 but I voted for Laver primarily because of his open era GS. IMO, that is the single greatest achievement of the open era so far.
I read an article on this a couple of years ago in the Times by Alastair Campbell. For those of you who may not have read it, here's the link :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9910-1165988,00.html
Some interesting comments by the players who were interviewed.

I'm enjoying reading all the opinions. Looks like it's a three-man race so far.

Laver

I think the predominant deciding factor of who the GOAT is, is number of slams won, where it was won, when it was won and on what surfaces. I wouldn't use a deconstruction of someones game as a basis of argument as there are too many avenues to go through. Plus remember Laver only won the grand slam once in the open era, plus that was mainly on grass. The other grand slam was before the open era and no professionals were allowed to enter. Plus i personally think the standard is much higher now than then as there are far more people playing it on a global scale and thus there is a bigger base of players.

for me it'd be sampras followed by borg. Federer would displace the two for me if he got the french open title, and came close to 14 slams. If he does the calendar (or non calendar) grand slam, gets about 12-14 slams. Borg is up there for me because in his short career he already amassed 11 slam titles because he won french AND wimby so many times despite the two surface being so different (much more than it is now) plus three times he managed to cope with the change of surface within such a short time and won both in the same year.

at the mo:
1. Sampras
2. Borg
3. Laver
4. Agassi (For doing the Career slam plus olympics)
5. Federer/Connors/Lendl

Well I've been watching tennis since 1972, mainly Wimbledon as I only had BBC till last year. Over all that time the player I've enjoyed most watching is Federer so he's my personal GOAT. However I take on board all the other arguments about actual achievements etc and objectively would probably go with Borg.

I went for Borg but I think Fed can surpass him if he wins the FO or gets to 15/16 slams

I know! Laver I guess deserves to get the GOAt but then there is the business of the surfaces .... I don't know! I guess I cant; say much about Laver as I dotn; remember him.

Great post. I guess I picked Borg as I can remember him well and so fully appreciate what he did for the sport. It is harder fo rme to assess Laver. although I think you have done so very well and it's a good point abotu the amateur/pro thing that stoped him achieving more wins so maybe it should be him.

Sampras also referred to this when he was questioned about breaking Emerson's record. The full interview is at : http://www.asapsports.com/tennis/1997usopen/082597PS.html

Q. Without us asking you again and again about whether you want to break, want to break Emerson's record, do you have sympathy with Tony Quinn, Hank Aaron, who were asked again and again and again if they were going to break a critical record?

PETE SAMPRAS: No, because it's something that's been asked quite a bit, but I've been giving the same answer. I mean, you know, sure it would be nice to break it, but I think we all have to understand that there are many years that Laver didn't play Grand Slams, for about six years. He could have won 15 or 20 majors. It's just a number out there. If I break it, doesn't mean I'm the best ever or whatever. It's just a number that, sure, I would love to break, and it's a goal that I definitely want to achieve. But hopefully one day I'll do it.

Cheers for the link, very interesting. Glad Pete acknolwedges that point, as he says it is a number and I think people should consider other factors than Gs totals when conisdering who is the GOAT.

Obviously Pete just doesn't understand how these things work. He needs to be educated by his biggest fans Apos and Lexi.

Not to mention Major Walter Wingfield, the founder of tennis. Pete really should read up on his tennis history ...

Im beginning to think Pete lives in La La village. :whistle:

Since Sampras never won the French, I dont see how he can be rated higher than Laver .

roflmao Yes poor Pete, what an idiot living in the dark abotu his greatness all these years. :D

The surface matters, not the tournament. What's more special- winning 8 wimbledons of 2 of each grand slam? Both laver and sampras only achieved on 2 surfaces, and since laver's two were completely opposite while sampras' weren't, that sort of makes up for the 3 grand slams. (were the grasses of USO, AO and W different? Like rebound ace is different to decoturf? Doesn't matter. Surfaces: Clay=you can slide, grass=the ball skids, hard=anything else.) so In My Opinion, Laver really only won 2 different titles in that respect, as did sampras. That doesn't put either irrevocably ahead of the other, but taht's why they can be compared. If laver won the grand slam in 2006, I don't think you could compare sampras with him in terms of what they won as much.

it's just soo difficult comparing folks from different eras. Look how the equipment has changed.

Would Fed be as good if he played with the same racquets as Laver? How much better would Laver be in today's environment?

There are at least 4 GOATS in that list

Laver
Borg
Sampras
Federer