The Ultimate GOAT List

http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/goatList

Very interesting, as the table takes in a lot of factors in, not just the numbers of slams.

Eg:

Grand Slam Points
+8 points for each Career Grand Slam
+8 points for each Calendar Year Grand Slam
+4 points each time when holding all 4 Grand Slams
+ (N - 1) * 1 points where N (N > 1) is number of consecutive Grand Slams on the same tournament New!
+ (N - 1) / 2 points where N (N > 1) is number of Grand Slams on the same tournament New!

Big Wins Points
Points assigned for winning big matches in the end-rounds of important tournaments against high-ranked opponents or as a high-ranked player
sum(MatchFactor * RankFactor) / 100
MatchFactor = factor(Level, Round)
RankFactor =
(factor(WinnerRank) + factor





It's all here in numbers!

Discuss! 

p.s.
btw, who was it that was always ending their threads on bbc606 with Discuss & ?

What a shockingly bad list that is. Federer is the only rating I'd agree with.

For me, the fact that Federer is at the top and Djokovic above Nadal is a good start, as I think that's the right order among the three.

Of course, it will always be difficult to produce the fair and perfect list because of conditions changes over the decades etc.

In Laver's time things vere faster and players had tough heavy racquets with small sweetspot.

But then again, the competition in those days was nothing compared to today.

Then, the accent was on skill, now it's shifted to fitness.

I find Sampras's position interesting.

Nadal, with all the props he's had does not deserve the third place un my opinion.

I think Djoko and Nadal are that high cause they are both active. I expect them to go down the raking once we gain perspective from this lung busting era.

connors over borg ...
murray over rosewall 
rod laver down in 12th positiion
hewitt over newcombe



the list is a mess

Just saw Murray with Laver! Why not Thomas Johnson while we are at it?

The goat list uses only stats of win/loss to give points. It doesn't take any bit into account the skill and the kind of game played by certain players.

Murray sitting along side Laver is a joke.

Federer was being talked as GOAT even in 2005-06 when he hadn't won even 1/3 of his total tally of tournaments. 


Greatness can't be concluded just by pulling out results and stats alone.


My list would have top-6 as :

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Borg
4. Pete
5. Connors
6. Djokovic

If you think style is also important why do you place Nadal that high?

I think this era messes up the ranking big way as being fit would guarantee you great results like just a serve did in the 90s. Shotmaking wise neither Djoko or Nadal have the guile to be ranked that high.

Tenez wrote:If you think style is also important why do you place Nadal that high?

I think this era messes up the ranking big way  as being fit would guarantee you great results like just a serve did in the 90s. Shotmaking wise neither Djoko or Nadal  have the guile to be ranked that high .

I agree.

If it was the shotmaking skill, then it would be Federer, McEnroe and Laver at the top.
Though, tbh, it's hard to assess the odler generation as there are not many clips around and I imagine even those who claim they saw them play only had rare chances as there was not much tennis coverage back then...maybe Wimbledon final.

As I said in my earlier post this list is interesting, (not perfect).
It's the first attempt I've seen outside the usual slam count one.
And I liked Nole was ranked higher than Nadal as I think his achievements are superior.
But that's just a small thing in the big picture. My subjective pursuit.

The biggest problem with this list is it relies on cold numbers and can't measure and compare the influence of technology and medicine.

Also, as I said, the competition now is harder than in Laver days.

So, it is probably impossible to make a list based on pure numbers.

The human/analog factor has to be carefully implemented.

A good challenge, but not impossoble.

Tenez wrote:If you think style is also important why do you place Nadal that high?

I think this era messes up the ranking big way  as being fit would guarantee you great results like just a serve did in the 90s. Shotmaking wise neither Djoko or Nadal  have the guile to be ranked that high.

Nadal's has very good style for the kind of game he plays. If you like watching defense from impossible positions and passes the he does it quite good. His footwork is amazing, the way he can run around his FH to go inside out or INside-in with fierce angle. His inside out forehand is real good, so is DTL which changing the direction of the return. His balance and speed on court. 

So he is good to watch on court. No wonder he is so popular.

Djokovic is not so watchable. Murray is a joke which it comes to watch-ability, nothing is good about his game, even his good 1st serve.

Nadal is not better than McEnroe, Borg, or Sampras.  He doesn't have the talent to be ranked that high - and he doesn't have an all round game to come ANYWHERE near Fed or Borg or McEnroe.

Rotla I find Nadals défense way too physical. Watch Coria in comparison or Borg. Both much lighter on their feet.

I agree his lasso FH has some style even if I think it s not energy friendly at all.

I think Nadal sits quite comfortably in top 5

Talking about style of play when considering a GOAT list is all very nice but, frankly, is usually just going to be a justification for lowering the position of a player the person doesn't like.

These lists can only ever be done on figures and this is a decent attempt. Clearly Murray's career is nowhere near Laver's but this chart is Open era only. It only takes into account Laver's career from circa age 30 onwards. 

The best list I've seen is the one a guy called Slasher did on Men's Tennis Forum. It included all pre Open era players, took into account pro-slams etc. From memory, it had Federer top, with Laver and Rosewall close behind. Sadly, he has currently taken it down as Nadal fans were heavily critical about the fact it had Novak above Rafa.

I personally woudl not put do a mixed pre and open era list. It does not make sense to compare a circus of 10 tennis players with the pro-open era players.

It's in short like comparing a tennis club with ATP players. 2 different levels.

naxroy wrote:I think Nadal sits quite comfortably in top 5

For me, Nadal is the most difficult player to place in any list because the element of physicality is so dominant in his game it's really tough to see/extract any talent he may have.

Tenez wrote:I personally woudl not put do a mixed pre and open era list. It does not make sense to compare a circus of 10 tennis players with the pro-open era players.

It's in short like comparing a tennis club with ATP players. 2 different levels.  

Interesting
in that case, you would not compare or simply you would not rate pre open era layers for GOAT debate?

noleisthebest wrote:

naxroy wrote:I think Nadal sits quite comfortably in top 5

For me, Nadal is the most difficult player to place in any list because the element of physicality is so dominant in his game it's really tough to see/extract any talent he may have.

its easy, this is a sport, in sport one wins and the rest loses, so the one winning the most is normally considered the best

other debate is which player one likes more or enjoys more

naxroy wrote:I think Nadal sits quite comfortably in top 5

Put him in the 80s on the old surfaces and with wooden racquets, and you'll soon learn just how limited Nadal actually is.  He's been made to look good by the modern homogenized conditions and the modern racquets.  That's a fact. He isn't an all round player.  He doesn't come close to the aforementioned.  You also assume he'd beat Borg on clay in the 70-80s and I am telling you it wouldn't be anywhere near the match you think it would be. And that's clay alone.  He'd never in a million years win Wimbledon in the 70-80s. And prob not in 90s either.

naxroy wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

naxroy wrote:I think Nadal sits quite comfortably in top 5

For me, Nadal is the most difficult player to place in any list because the element of physicality is so dominant in his game it's really tough to see/extract any talent he may have.

its easy, this is a sport, in sport one wins and the rest loses, so the one winning the most is normally considered the best
other debate is which player one likes more or enjoys more

That's how it should be in theory and generally is in amateur sport.

But where money gets in we have draw rigging, playing conditions altered, positive doping test/blood bags destroyed by judges, rules bent...so we have to see through all that.

Otherwise, one could say that Djokovic is the best player as he has positive H2H with both Federer and Nadal.

But we know that's not true.

Daniel wrote:

naxroy wrote:I think Nadal sits quite comfortably in top 5

Put him in the 80s on the old surfaces and with wooden racquets, and you'll soon learn just how limited Nadal actually is.  He's been made to look good by the modern homogenized conditions and the modern racquets.  That's a fact. He isn't an all round player.  He doesn't come close to the aforementioned.  You also assume he'd beat Borg on clay in the 70-80s and I am telling you it wouldn't be anywhere near the match you think it would be. And that's clay alone.  He'd never in a million years win Wimbledon in the 70-80s. And prob not in 90s either.

too bad borg played in the 70s80s and nadal in the 2000s10s, we will never know

but hey, Nadal played in the era of Federer and djokovic, and he did not do so bad

naxroy wrote:

Tenez wrote:I personally woudl not put do a mixed pre and open era list. It does not make sense to compare a circus of 10 tennis players with the pro-open era players.

It's in short like comparing a tennis club with ATP players. 2 different levels.  

Interesting
in that case, you would not compare or simply you would not rate pre open era layers for GOAT debate?

A bit of both. There were talented players back then for sure. Amazing players for the time. But they were just a small group of players able to survive just playing tennis, so they were facing tons of amateurs.

They put tennis on the map and I respect them for that but tennis wise it is a bit Barhami's club: Entertainers.

naxroy wrote: bad borg played in the 70s80s and nadal in the 2000s10s, we will never know

but hey, Nadal played in the era of Federer and djokovic, and he did not do so bad

To see how good Nadal really is, we would have to eliminate all the physicality that masks any of his potential talent.

And the only way I see it possible is to give him a wooden racquet.

That would be phenomenal:

To see Nadal vs Federer with wooden racquets...on all surfaces.

Yeah, it would.  Nadal wouldn't win a bean.

I would then expect a 14-23 more or less

naxroy wrote:I would then expect a 14-23 more or less

I doubt Rafa would win 14. Nothing like it - what revs do you think he could generate on a smaller headed racquet, and without super-revs exactly what does Nadal do?

bogbrush wrote:

naxroy wrote:I would then expect a 14-23 more or less

I doubt Rafa would win 14. Nothing like it - what revs do you think he could generate on a smaller headed racquet, and without super-revs exactly what does Nadal do?

Nadal would have won multiple slams in any era with any racquet. Maybe not 14, but about 8-10 as I think, I don't expect him to win any wimbledon or USopen with his kind of game. Also on clay, he might not be as dominant as he can be with the new weapons.

Winning slams is not only about having technology. Its been 12+ years since Nadal won his first slam and yet there hasn't been any young player who can do what he was doing 12 years ago.

Nope.  Not 10.  You are wildly underestimating how much he relies on power and spin.  Even with it, he's lost in modern conditions 4 times at Wimbledon to Rank 100s.  He is massively limited outside of his niche conditions.

What's with this "if Nadal had a wooden racquet" tripe.

No-one from this era would master the wooden racquet if their game was developed in today's conditions.

Time everyone stopped being silly on this issue.

Stop that! It's silly! And a bit suspect I think!

That's the spirit LS!

It's a blind leading the blind up a blind alley discussion.

Today Richard Krajicek revealed his goat list on Dutch television. It's not that i think his view is of much importance but it sure is a funny list...

1. Djokovic ("on his day better than any player ever lived")
2. Borg  (his personal fav)
3. McEnroe (his inspirator)
4. Laver   (yup, there was the GS 2 times story again)
5. Nadal  ("better than Federer because he has a gold medal in singles...")
6. Federer (Yes, Kraji is very generous here. He's a notorious Federer hater for some reason...)
7. Lew Hoad  (Who??)
8. Conners  (What??)
9. Agassi 
10. The presentator came up with Sampras  but Krajicek had a hard time putting Sampras in the top 10. The debate ended here.


Some list eh? For a Wimbledon winner..

wow....that is a funny list. It just tells you that as good as the player you can be, you are going to have such diverse views.

I remember Moya saying for instance that Pete was much better than Federer. Who thinks that nowadays? bar Lyndian maybe? (whatever his name was)

What would be my list?

1 - Federer
2 - Borg
3- Pete (reluctanly)
4/5 - Lendl/McEnroe
6/7 - Nadal/Djoko still to be decided
8 - Edberg
9- Boris Becker
10 - Wilander

If I had to include the pre-open era (the circus) I would put Pancho as #8 and Laver at #10.

Tenez wrote:wow....that is a funny list. It just tells you that as good as the player you can be, you are going to have such diverse views.

I remember Moya saying for instance that Pete was much better than Federer. Who thinks that nowadays? bar Lyndian maybe? (whatever his name was)

Yeah, but as you know Krajicek is a TD, so what's his opinion worth? He's probably after Djoko for Rotterdam 2018. I also think he's still pissed Federer came totally unprepared to Rotterdam in 2013 and lost in the quarters to Benneteau. It was the last time Federer played in Rotterdam. Krajicek (an intelligent but also rancorous man) explained: "for the price of 1 Federer i have 4 other top 10 players"  and "Federer is no longer top of the bill". 
Krajicek can't fool the Dutch tennis fan because the tournament never sells out, unless Federer is there.. The absence of Federer means approx 10.000 tics sold less   . In your face Kraj!

Silly Moya: even during his haydays he couldn't beat little boy Federer:
https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/fedex-head-2-head/roger-federer-vs-carlos-moya/F324/M605

The GOAT list in the OP is price based, which results in a dubious list, so i guess a game based list is more relevant. Conners has a place in the history books because he won a awfull lot of tournaments, but many of those had very small draws (a 4 or 8 player draw was not unusual). Messi and Ronaldo haven't won the WC and probably never will, but they make it on anyone's top 5 goat list.

gallery play wrote:....
Krajicek can't fool the Dutch tennis fan because the tournament never sells out, unless Federer is there.. The absence of Federer means approx 10.000 tics sold less   . In your face Kraj!

hehe....and even less likely to have Fed next year. He will have to bring Nadal and his orange sponge balls in! Rott 2013 was the time and year Fed started to have serious back problems.

Silly Moya: even during his haydays he couldn't beat little boy Federer:
https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/fedex-head-2-head/roger-federer-vs-carlos-moya/F324/M605

lol...cool. I did not know.

The GOAT list in the OP is price based, which results in a dubious list, so i guess a game based list is more relevant. Conners has a place in the history books because he won a awfull lot of tournaments, but many of those had very small draws (a 4 or 8 player draw was not unusual). Messi and Ronaldo haven't won the WC and probably never will, but they make it on anyone's top 5 goat list.

That is why I think such a list should be simply poll based. Because the perceived view is more important than anything else.....sadly. But at the same time it makes it an evolving list.

gallery play wrote:Today Richard Krajicek revealed his goat list on Dutch television. It's not that i think his view is of much importance but it sure is a funny list...

1. Djokovic ("on his day better than any player ever lived")
2. Borg  (his personal fav)
3. McEnroe (his inspirator)
4. Laver   (yup, there was the GS 2 times story again)
5. Nadal  ("better than Federer because he has a gold medal in singles...")
6. Federer (Yes, Kraji is very generous here. He's a notorious Federer hater for some reason...)
7. Lew Hoad  (Who??)
8. Conners  (What??)
9. Agassi 
10. The presentator came up with Sampras  but Krajicek had a hard time putting Sampras in the top 10. The debate ended here.


Some list eh? For a Wimbledon winner..

That is some list!

In fairness (and not agreeing with his list) there will always be areas of bias (even here with posters reluctant to readily identify with Nadal's achievements) though I will say I would always find it odd if Federer never sat on the top of anyone's GOAT list.

Tenez wrote:What would be my list?

1 - Federer
2 - Borg
3- Pete (reluctanly)
4/5 - Lendl/McEnroe
6/7 - Nadal/Djoko still to be decided
8 - Edberg
9- Boris Becker
10 - Wilander

If I had to include the pre-open era (the circus) I would put Pancho as #8 and Laver at #10.

reviewing my own list a couple of days later and even I don't agree with it.

In a way it's impossible to compare apples and oranges. How can Borg be compared with Becker for instance? How can Pete be that high when I am 100% sure he woudl not have won a single slam in today's era.

Tenez wrote:

Tenez wrote:What would be my list?

1 - Federer
2 - Borg
3- Pete (reluctanly)
4/5 - Lendl/McEnroe
6/7 - Nadal/Djoko still to be decided
8 - Edberg
9- Boris Becker
10 - Wilander

If I had to include the pre-open era (the circus) I would put Pancho as #8 and Laver at #10.

reviewing my own list a couple of days later and even I don't agree with it.

In a way it's impossible to compare apples and oranges. How can Borg be compared with Becker for instance? How can Pete be that high when I am 100% sure he woudl not have won a single slam in today's era.

The in turn doesn't that then drive the approach of many observers to say "right the guy with the most is the starter for 10"?

I agree with you. I try to take the approach of taking a player in isolation, looking at the achievements, looking at the conditions and competition, looking at the style of play and to myself personally ranking that as a complete picture of achievement. I think it's why when you get to the last 3-4 players in anyone's top 10, you find a mix really as people rank other players by differing criteria which isn't driven by number of Slams.

Tenez wrote:

Tenez wrote:What would be my list?

1 - Federer
2 - Borg
3- Pete (reluctanly)
4/5 - Lendl/McEnroe
6/7 - Nadal/Djoko still to be decided
8 - Edberg
9- Boris Becker
10 - Wilander

If I had to include the pre-open era (the circus) I would put Pancho as #8 and Laver at #10.

reviewing my own list a couple of days later and even I don't agree with it.

In a way it's impossible to compare apples and oranges. How can Borg be compared with Becker for instance? How can Pete be that high when I am 100% sure he woudl not have won a single slam in today's era.

At the end of the day there's one certainty: Fed's the goat. People who think otherwise can't be trusted

Like you i tend to put quite a few 80's players (including Borg) on the list, because it still feels as the golden age of tennis.  But like you said: how do you compare Djoko to McEnroe? One has great hands and the other is the best athlete..

Tenez wrote:

Tenez wrote:What would be my list?
1 - Federer
2 - Borg
3- Pete (reluctanly)
4/5 - Lendl/McEnroe
6/7 - Nadal/Djoko still to be decided
8 - Edberg
9- Boris Becker
10 - Wilander
If I had to include the pre-open era (the circus) I would put Pancho as #8 and Laver at #10.

reviewing my own list a couple of days later and even I don't agree with it.

In a way it's impossible to compare apples and oranges. How can Borg be compared with Becker for instance? How can Pete be that high when I am 100% sure he woudl not have won a single slam in today's era.

When I saw your list, Borg at number two, right behind Fed looked "impressive".

And I thought you were gallant there.

My immediate thought was that Mac was better than Borg mainly as in my opinion he had a more "one" feel for the game.
To start with, Borg played his BH with two hands and I believe that prevented him from being an organic player like Federer, Mac and now Shapo, he had to learn to conquer grass, it didn't come to him naturally.

From that angle, Lendl is in a way Borg's successor, except that he never managed to win Wimbledon.

I also think that the pre 80s era should not even be in contention for GOAT conversation, mainly as the game was as you said it at the club level.

Surely there must have been some great talents and matches, but they are as difficult to compare to Federer as Djokovic is difficult to compare to them.

gallery play wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Tenez wrote:What would be my list?

1 - Federer
2 - Borg
3- Pete (reluctanly)
4/5 - Lendl/McEnroe
6/7 - Nadal/Djoko still to be decided
8 - Edberg
9- Boris Becker
10 - Wilander

If I had to include the pre-open era (the circus) I would put Pancho as #8 and Laver at #10.

reviewing my own list a couple of days later and even I don't agree with it.

In a way it's impossible to compare apples and oranges. How can Borg be compared with Becker for instance? How can Pete be that high when I am 100% sure he woudl not have won a single slam in today's era.

At the end of the day there's one certainty: Fed's the goat. People who think otherwise can't be trusted

Like you i tend to put quite a few 80's players (including Borg) on the list, because it still feels as the golden age of tennis.  But like you said: how do you compare Djoko to McEnroe? One has great hands and the other is the best athlete..

So true!

gallery play wrote:
Like you i tend to put quite a few 80's players (including Borg) on the list, because it still feels as the golden age of tennis.  But like you said: how do you compare Djoko to McEnroe? One has great hands and the other is the best athlete..

Yes.

That's the key problem.

The game has drifted too much in the physical direction.

Time will be the best judge of this era.

We can take AO '12 final as its pinnacle.
Even though Nole outlasted Nadal by a whisker and a bit of luck as his game is simply more energy efficient, to me that match was the beginning of the end of physical era.

Now, we can already see that talent is conquering it - Kyrgios, Shapovalov.
They are the guys beating big names young.

And neither are physical!

Anyone who puts Federer outside of the top 2 is a moron.  Anyone who puts Nadal in the top 2 is a moron.

We will see Nadal´s final position whenever he is retired... and probably a few years later, but for now he stands far from the second as the best claycourter ever, without a doubt.

Anyone remembers Boba Zivojinovic?

His most famous moment came when he beat Mac in AO 85, and would not allow Mac to disrupt his momentum arguing with the umpire...indtead, he sat among the crowd and wte his sandwich while Mac was ranting...a fan even offered him some champagne...how cool was that! 



He brought tennis to Belgrade...in the dqys when to play tennis meant you "went to poufters", according to his PE teacher.
Cool interview with him, warm & nostalgic of how innocent those days were...

http://www.kurir.rs/sport/tenis/2920705/boba-zivojinovic-o-romanticnim-vremenima-tenisa-pojedem-pola-jagnjeta-pa-izadjem-na-teren-da-sam-se-hranio-kao-nole

One of the funny things was the interviewer asked him if he would have been better ranked had he eaten same diet as Djokovic (Boba's highest ranking was 19), he said:
"For sure! I used to ear half roast lamb before my matches"

Those were the days....


But it just shows again how dofficult it is to compare previous eras to this one.

noleisthebest wrote:Anyone remembers Boba Zivojinovic?

His most famous moment came when he beat Mac in AO 85, and would not allow Mac to disrupt his momentum arguing with the umpire...indtead, he sat among the crowd and wte his sandwich while Mac was ranting...a fan even offered him some champagne...how cool was that! 



He brought tennis to Belgrade...in the dqys when to play tennis meant you "went to poufters", according to his PE teacher.
Cool interview with him, warm & nostalgic of how innocent those days were...

http://www.kurir.rs/sport/tenis/2920705/boba-zivojinovic-o-romanticnim-vremenima-tenisa-pojedem-pola-jagnjeta-pa-izadjem-na-teren-da-sam-se-hranio-kao-nole

One of the funny things was the interviewer asked him if he would have been better ranked had he eaten same diet as Djokovic (Boba's highest ranking was 19), he said:
"For sure! I used to ear half roast lamb before my matches"

Those were the days....


But it just shows again how dofficult it is to compare previous eras to this one.

Slobo? Oh yeah I remember. I think I mentioned him in a post a few months ago. Funny guy but it was the time when anyone with power and a bigger racquet could blast the old greats off the court. Becker went all the way in 85 cause he learnt the game with a big frame. A bit similar to doping if you think about it. Legal doping of course.

How big were Edberg's and Ivanisevic's racquets?

noleisthebest wrote:How big were Edberg's and Ivanisevic's racquets?

Not that big but still easier to whack the ball with than the heavy wooden rackets with ridiculous small frames .