Photo credit: Matthew Stockman/Getty
The GOAT debate has long captivated tennis fans and players for decades.
Debates on who the Greatest Of All Time in any sport or competition has been discussed ever since there have been sports. Unfortunately, most sports aren’t like weightlifting or running a race where you can have an exact measurement of what you carried out or at least a close measurement.
I’ve read some on the internet saying there is no GOAT in tennis. That to me is not accurate. Of course there is a GOAT in tennis, but it depends on what category you are discussing.
One of the reasons I’m writing this article is not necessarily to determine who is the GOAT of tennis but to discuss the reasons how we should examine and determine a potential GOAT. I also give due credit to the GOAT level players who have been overlooked over the years due to the passage of time and other factors.
I am not necessarily going to pick a GOAT of Tennis but I felt it would be interesting to examine the facts. I may eliminate a few from consideration who have been called the GOAT. I will offer some logical reasons why a certain Great Player has a reasonable argument to be considered possibly the Greatest of All Time.
The game of chess now with our super chess computer programs, can analyze the accuracy of chess players throughout history. So they can establish who is the most accurate human player of all time, which I believe is currently Magnus Carlsen. Even that has some problems because the old-time chess players did not have the theory and the current technology that we have today to improve play. Perhaps these players would have been far better and perhaps could rival Carlsen for accuracy of chess play.
In some ways perhaps a better question is how would Carlsen do in Bobby Fischer’s time, Emmanuel Lasker’s time, Mikhail Tal’s time or the early days of Karpov and Kasparov when there were no computers or online play?
Clearly, as of now, if you just discuss the accuracy of chess moves, the GOAT of chess is Magnus Carlsen. That is one category in chess.
Would Carlsen be as accurate if he didn’t have today’s technology? I don’t think so.
For example, if you were discussing the GOAT of tennis with a wood racquet you definitely would NOT have Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic or Rafael Nadal aka the Big Three in the mix or in the Women’s Game, Serena Williams, or Steffi Graf.
In that way, new racquet and string technology are the equivalent of using computer programs in chess. It helps improve the player’s level of play enormously.
Will they be able to find out who is the best tennis player in certain categories via computer analysis? Perhaps someday. I am certain they have the technology to do it now if they wanted to.
Can players today hit all the shots they hit today with a wood racquet? I do not think so. Everything is relative.
Clearly the players of today and recent years can hit superior shots compared to the players of yesteryear because of better equipment. They have better racquets, better strings, and frankly better training methods due to advances in medicine.
Roger Federer at his peak could hit superior shots compared to the players of the past. However, he also had superior equipment and other resources. A good question to ask is how Federer would do if he was playing in 1965. I’m sure he would be fantastic and awesome, but he wouldn’t be able to hit the shots he could hit when he was at his peak in the 2000s due to the inferior racquets and strings. Also, the advances in training methods is a substantial difference.
It also depends on how you define what a GOAT is. You can’t necessarily go into total accomplishments without examining the history behind those accomplishments. For example, Roy Emerson once held the record for the most majors won with 12. Did any tennis expert ever consider Roy Emerson to be the GOAT? I don’t think so.
The reason was that Emerson won all his majors as an amateur, without playing all the top players. Roy Emerson was of course a great player but playing and winning majors in the amateurs isn’t as great an accomplishment as winning majors in Open Tennis. Would Emerson have won 12 majors if Laver, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Sedgman, Segura, Trabert, Gimeno and Hoad played in those majors? Almost definitely not.
Let’s give a ridiculous example of how you have to examine things in total. Let’s say there is a Club Championship and Player A, who is a good player but not World Class, wins his Club Championship 10 years in a row without ever losing. He departs from the club for a while.
In the meantime, a young kid named Rafael Nadal, age 22, decides to join the same club. He wins the Club Championship for 2 straight years. Not only does Rafa win the Club Championship, but he also wins it without losing a game in both years.
Nadal leaves the Club. Player A comes back to win the Championship again.
My question is this, who is the GOAT of that club?
Well, if you go by just Championship Titles, it’s clearly Player A, with 11 Club Championships. That’s the way much of the media rates the greats.
But let’s face it, the GOAT of that Club is Rafael Nadal.
I point this out because often we just count Championships aka majors to decide who is the GOAT in Tennis history. Well, counting Championships is fine. It is a decent indicator of the possible greatness of the player we are examining. But we have to recognize the reason we count championships is to understand the LEVEL OF PLAY of the player we are discussing.
The LEVEL OF PLAY of Rafael Nadal is far superior to that of Player A.
I believe just looking at raw numbers is just part of the equation, but you have to dig deeper for the truth. You have to look at everything and do an objective analysis. I’ve seen some articles in which the writer already decided beforehand on the outcome and simply uses only the information that supports their opinion. That to me is the incorrect way to examine things.
The true way to figure out who is the GOAT or who has good reasons to be called the GOAT is to examine what the player accomplished of course, but also to understand the circumstances under which that player was able to accumulate those accomplishments! What the player accomplished is simply a device to gauge the level of play of that particular tennis player.
Sometimes there are factors like the Professional Tennis/Amateur Tennis divide in the Men’s game that prevented players from entering major tournaments like Wimbledon. There could be boycotts not allowing players to play Wimbledon like in 1973, when most of the top players did not play.
This allowed Jan Kodes an easier path to win Wimbledon. Perhaps Kodes would have won Wimbledon that year anyway but we will never know. Later that year Kodes came within one set of winning the US Open but was defeated by the great John Newcombe in 5 sets after Kodes was leading 2 sets to 1.
Jimmy Connors and Evonne Goolagong were not allowed to play the French Open in 1974 due to the fact that they dared to sign a contract with World TeamTennis. Connors was in the middle of perhaps his greatest year in which he won every classic major he entered! Would he have won the French Open and the Grand Slam? Who knows? It was a shame he did not get the chance.
Bjorn Borg and Chris Evert won the 1974 French Open that year. Evert probably would have won the French Open anyway but Goolagong was capable of defeating Evert even on clay. It would have been nice to see her get that chance.
Another problem is that some classic majors lost a lot of prestige in some years. Because of that many top players did not want to play in that particular major tournament. Other tournaments, like the WCT Finals were really majors in terms of prestige.
So often some majors, due to the fact that they lost prestige, did not have the strongest fields. There were other factors also, like the fact that the Australian Open for example was played at the end of the calendar year. Many players didn’t want to play at that time of year.
Arthur Ashe was ranked No. 1 in 1975 due to the fact he won the WCT Finals and Wimbledon. The WCT Finals had great prestige so essentially Ashe won 2 majors that year.
So a player like John McEnroe, who officially has won 7 classic majors can be argued to have won really won 12 majors because he won 5 WCT Finals, although the WCT Finals did lose some prestige in its later years. Same with Ivan Lendl. Lendl won 8 classic majors but also won 3 WCT Finals for 11 majors. At worse, the WCT Finals are a top level addition to the resume of these great players showing their high level of play.
So, let’s examine what players have a reasonable argument for being the GOAT or players who have been called the GOAT while they were playing, why they could be and perhaps arguments against that. The key word here is REASONABLE. Someone could say the Club Champion I mentioned earlier is the GOAT but that would be ridiculous.
Open Era
Jimmy Connors
I know what you are saying, why James Scott Connors? He’s rarely spoken of as a GOAT candidate.
Well, the purpose of this article is to discuss some players, especially those in the Open Era, who have been sometimes called the GOAT.
Hall of Famer Arthur Ashe for example, while not calling Jimmy Connors the GOAT did say that he was the greatest player of the Open Era years ago. Granted this preceded Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic but he did say that. I have seen some studies that have also named Connors the greatest of the Open Era.
I don’t think some realize the awe that Connors inspired when he first came into the tennis scene. He was considered by some to be young and brash. No one could figure out how he was able to defeat the more conventional player but still great Stan Smith 3 times out of 3 in 1973 to become the joint U.S. No. a. Smith that year was at the peak of his career winning several majors and also winning the prestigious WCT Finals over Arthur Ashe.
Now while Stan Smith was a great player in the early 1970s with his huge serve and volley game, people didn’t realize how great Connors was at first. He was a lefty but he was not the serve and volleyer that many players were at that time even though he could serve and volley if needed.
Connors owned one of the greatest returns in tennis history and arguably the best backhand in tennis history. His forehand was excellent although it was weaker than his legendary backhand. He was very fast and quick, with a good volley that was set up by his incredibly penetrating approach shots. His footwork was exemplary and his anticipation was fantastic.
Connors would tear apart serve and volleyers, generally speaking. You really had to have a powerful serve and volley to handle the Connors return well. Only a few could do that. Maybe at times, John Newcombe, Roscoe Tanner and John McEnroe could do that. Borg would serve and volley on his first serve but not his second on grass.
Connors’ serve, while not at the level of the lefty serve of a John McEnroe (very few, if any are) was a high percentage consistent shot which very few could attack. He could, if needed, up the speed on his serve. Connors usually used his great groundstrokes to control the rally and come in if necessary although he did serve and volley at appropriate times.
Connors still owns the ATP record for most tournaments won with 109. While that is great. It doesn’t mention that Connors won many legitimate tournaments that are not counted by the ATP. I’ve seen figures that Connors won over 150 tournaments in his great career.
Connors won 8 Grand Slam titles in his career but at that point in tennis history, players were not obliged to go to every major tournament. Connors imo probably would have won a number of Australian Open titles if he chose to enter the tournament more and perhaps he may have picked up a French Open. You also have to consider that the WCT Finals was a prestigious tournament and in reality for many years considered on the same level of the classic majors. Connors won several WCT Finals.
Connors did not play the French Open for many years. Perhaps due to the fact the French Open did not allow him to play the tournament in 1974 because he committed to playing World Team Tennis. It’s a sad tragedy of tennis history that Connors didn’t play the French Open that year. We will never know if he could have won the Grand Slam that year in 1974, but based on his dominant season it’s quite possible.
The year 1974 was arguably the greatest year in Open tennis history for a male player. Yes, I know we can discuss Laver’s year in 1969, McEnroe’s year in 1984, several years that Borg had and a number of years by the big three of Djokovic, Nadal and Federer but I think you can make a reasonable argument for it.
First of all Connors won 3 majors out of 3 played. Connors won the Australian Open over Phil Dent. And he won Wimbledon and the US Open in crushing fashion over the legend Ken Rosewall. Connors seemed to be in the zone in those matches against Rosewall. Rosewall would hit a very strong shot and somehow it seemed that Connors would hit a winner off it. Rosewall won 8 games in 6 sets against Connors in those 2 finals.
Connors in 1974 won the still prestigious US Clay Courts over Bjorn Borg, who won the French Open that year. Connors also won the 1974 Pacific Southwest which was arguably the strongest hard-court tournament of the year.
Connors’ record for 1974 was either 93-4 or 99-4 depending on the source. It was one of the highest percentage won-lost records for a year in the Open Era next to John McEnroe’s 1984 season in which he won 82 of 85.
Connors won 15 of 17 tournaments that year in 1974. That is astounding.
In 1975 Connors was in the Wimbledon final again. He was the overwhelming favorite to defeat Arthur Ashe for the title. Ashe had never defeated him before. In a huge upset Ashe defeated Connors 6-1 6-1 5-7 6-4 to win the title.
Many experts have written and said that the reason Ashe defeated Connors was that Ashe did not play his normal power game and used “junk”, meaning no pace, different spins and angles and low balls to the left-hander’s flat forehand to defeat Connors. Perhaps that may have been somewhat of a factor but I believe the main reason Connors lost was that he was injured.
Here’s an excerpt from Jimmy Connors’ fabulous book The Outsider:
"Chasing a drop shot early in my first-round match on the damp grass of Centre Court, I slipped and hyperextended my knee. I didn’t think much of it at the time; I carried on playing and won 6-2 6-3 6-1. But once the adrenaline rush of my first Wimbledon title defense was over, all that changed. I felt a degree of pain I never experienced before.
“I thought I would be OK after some rest, but when I woke up the next morning, the pain had intensified; my knee was completely swollen and unable to support my weight. I got in touch with Bill and he found me the top physiotherapist at Chelsea Football Club, one of England’s leading soccer teams, which had the facilities to treat this type of injury. After they examined me, it turned out I had a couple of hairline fractures in my shin–painful but treatable. Thanks, Lloydy, I’m blaming this on you….
“I advanced to the final without losing a set, but 24 hours before my showdown with Ashe, the physio warned me once again to take it easy; he was afraid the fractures were getting worse.
So why did I continue to play? Because I’m an idiot. I did decide to take the day off before the final, though.”
To be clear Connors made no excuses and credited Ashe for defeating him. However I cannot believe that this major injury (no pun intended) did not hurt Connors’ play substantially. Ashe may very well have won anyway but if Connors was healthy and they played the match at Wimbledon again, I think Connors would win. That was the only time Ashe defeated Connors.
Connors was also No. 1 in the world for 5 years in a row and was in the top 10 for 16 years. Years at No. 1 is a category that is, to me, very important in looking at the level of play of a top player and years in the top 10 is also exceptionally important.
In tennis, Nastase in 1973 won 1 major in the French while John Newcombe won 2 majors in the Australian and the US Open. Nastase was clearly No. 1 for 1973 and the World Champion.
My point is that being No. 1 at the end of the year may be more important than winning a major. After all if you are No. 1, you are the top player for the year and isn’t that what all tennis players strive for?
You could also have a very good argument that Connors was No. 1 in 1982 when he won 2 majors in Wimbledon and the US Open. But to be fair John McEnroe was officially No. 1 that year on the ATP Tour.
Some years in which Connors was No. 2 in some polls were good enough to be No. 1 in many other years! That shows the incredible level of play that he had in those days. Connors never seemed to be upset early like some players could be. He seemed to be always great in almost every match.
Here’s Connors defeating McEnroe to win the 1982 Wimbledon.
Bjorn Borg
Bjorn Borg is one of the most amazing and unique players in the history of tennis. Many have used topspin strokes prior to Borg but Borg was the one who popularized it. Borg was considered a unicorn in his day but nowadays in many ways his strokes are almost considered classic strokes.
Despite this, I am not sure if any player has been able to duplicate the effectiveness of Borg’s power topspin game. With a small heavy wood racquet Borg was able to hit with consistent powerful topspin that would be difficult for players of his era to handle. It would have been interesting to see how Borg would do with the current tennis racquets and strings. My belief is he would have hit even heavier, more hellacious topspin.
Borg was a great athlete, one of the greatest and possibly most gifted athletes that tennis has produced. Although on this what makes a GOAT article, we do have a lot of tremendous athletes like Gonzalez, Vines, Hoad, Laver, Tilden, Sampras, Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and now Alcaraz among others.
Borg was a player without a stroke weakness. His groundstrokes at his best were unsurpassed and his return was comparable to that of Jimmy Connors. Borg’s serve was extremely powerful and one of the best in the game. I remember a match in which he was playing, I believe Jimmy Connors at the 1981 US Open in which he hit a serve which was the second fastest of the tournament. Considering that big servers like Roscoe Tanner, Ivan Lendl, Yannick Noah played in the tournament, that’s pretty impressive.
Borg was considered one of the fastest players in tennis, if not the fastest. His stamina was remarkable. It has been said that he never felt tired during a match which partially explains his excellent 5 set record.
So why is Borg considered a potential GOAT candidate?
Well obviously, his 11 majors in only 27 attempts with 4 finals reached is a great start. But we also have to consider that he probably won as many as 106 tournaments before he retired essentially at age 25.
Among the other reasons was his incredible dominance of the game when he was at his peak in 1978 and 1979. The improvement from his earlier years was hard to believe considering he was a fabulous player to begin with.
His Games Won Percentages in those years were off the charts for the Open Era. It far surpasses any year by Sampras, Laver, Djokovic, Federer and Nadal. It’s very possible that Games Won Percentage (assuming you play on all surfaces which Borg did) may be a greater indication of how strong the player is than almost anything else. Borg probably led the ATP in percentage of serves held and percentage of serves broke on return in both those years. I believe his won-lost record against the top ten was incredible also.
Take for example his year in 1979. According to my records, Borg won 21 out of 28 tournaments played. Among these tournaments were the French Open, Wimbledon, the Canadian Open, the Pepsi Grand Slam (very prestigious tournament then), Alan King Classic, Monte Carlo, WCT Challenge Cup (another very prestigious tournament), and the Year End Masters. This is a year that most players would go into the Hall of Fame for their career.
For example Patrick Rafter won 11 tournaments in his career with 2 US Opens won. He had a fabulous career and was an incredible player. Rafter is in the International Tennis Hall of Fame—deservedly so.
Borg, in some ways more than matched Rafter’s entire career in just 1 year.
Aside from the quality of play and accomplishments we must also look at how Borg changed the game. Borg’s method of play was considered an oddity. Very few hit with the western forehand grip that he had. Very few then hit with a two handed backhand. Borg was able to attack with his topspin with far more safety and he was one of those, along with Chris Evert and Jimmy Connors who popularized the two-handed backhand.
Borg hit his backhand with a unique style. He followed through on the backhand and released his left hand quickly. I don’t know the exact reasons for this but it was very fluid and amazing to see. I suppose it probably increased the racquet speed. In his memoir, written with fellow Hall of Famer and Tennis Week publisher Gene Scott, Borg shared that early coaches in Sweden urged him to switch to a one-handed backhand telling him repeatedly the two-hander would not work on faster surfaces against hard hitters.
Thankfully, Borg did not heed that advice.
Borg’s forehand was a very underrated shot. It was considered the best in tennis, combining power, spin, angles and consistency. He could change it slightly for different surfaces like grass. I believe it was one of the greatest shots in tennis history. One of the two top tennis magazines rated the top strokes of the players and Borg’s forehand was ranked as the best of the players at the time. Borg’s backhand was rated second only to the super backhand of Jimmy Connors if memory serves.
Here’s Borg versus Ivan Lendl in the Master’s Final in 1981.
https://youtu.be/yyuiEzBb7hk?si=amAVswR-cJ4UCTEH
Tennis has had its share of nicknames. One player was called the California Comet. That player was Maurice McLoughlin who won the US Nationals twice.
In some ways Bjorn Borg was sort of a Swedish Comet. Sure he did play for a good number of years but he retired far too soon, years before he was 30. Yet, even during his shorter than expected career, his accomplishments were enormous. The level of play seemed at times to be otherworldly. For pure level of play at his peak and for career, Borg has an excellent argument to be the Greatest Player in Tennis History.
John McEnroe
John McEnroe has been called a genius on the tennis court by many of his fellow players. His reflexes and his ability at the net is perhaps unrivalled in tennis history. His touch and ability to hit the ball on the rise was also impressive.
John McEnroe of course, as many of us know, was one of the greatest serve and volleyers of all time. His lefty serve was devastating. He could pull a player into the stands with his lefty serve in the ad court. He could do almost anything with his volley. His groundstrokes, while he did not have the consistent power of a Lendl, Borg or Connors was strong enough. He hit his groundstrokes very early and he could hit a variety of spins to bother his opponent. His return was excellent. McEnroe’s return of serve was underrated: He was a very tough player to ace.
McEnroe’s greatest year was 1984 in which he won 13 of 15 tournaments entered including Wimbledon and the US Open. McEnroe’s Games Won Percentage that year was an unreal 65.32% which is greater than any other player of the Open Era except for Bjorn Borg.
John McEnroe’s talent stands out in any era. Many believe that at his best McEnroe was as great as any player that ever played. The great writer Frank DeFord called McEnroe’s remarkable 1984 seasons one of the best seasons he’d ever witnessed by any athlete in any individual sport. That is high praise.
McEnroe’s final match at Wimbledon in 1984 has been often called the finest match of all time. Against Jimmy Connors, he made very few unforced errors. Hall of Famer and former McEnroe Davis Cup captain Tony Trabert called that performance one of the best he’d ever seen in a major.
Here’s John McEnroe playing Jimmy Connors in the 1984 US Open semifinal. Just a fabulous match and one of my favorite matches to watch.
The ATP has John McEnroe with 77 tournaments won including 7 majors. Vainquers has McEnroe at 80 tournaments won. While McEnroe won 7 majors, I believe you have to include the 5 WCT Championships that he won. It was a huge tournament and, in its day, bigger than some majors.
From 1981 to 1985 McEnroe won 363 matches and lost only 42 for an astounding 89.63%. Some all-time greats never reached that percentage for one year.
Clearly McEnroe was great for peak level and superb for career level. And don’t forget: McEnroe is one of a handful of players in history to hold the world No. 1 ranking in singles and doubles simultaneously—he’s also the last man to master a major wielding a wood racquet.
Pete Sampras
Pete Sampras burst into the public eye when he won the 1990 US Open by defeating Muster, Lendl (in 5 sets), John McEnroe and in the final Andre Agassi.
That is some tough lineup to beat for a maiden major title—and Sampras did it as a teenager.
Sampras seemed to have everything. He was a great athlete, and had one of the best serves in history, including one of the greatest second serves ever. The Sampras leaping smash was one of the greatest overheads of his era. He had a tremendous forehand, especially on the run and his backhand was very smooth. Sampras actually had a two-handed backhand when he was younger but his coach convinced him to switch to a one-handed backhand so he could have better chances of winning Wimbledon.
If the purpose of the switch was to win Wimbledon, I would say it worked out well since at one point Sampras won 7 Wimbledon championships in 8 years.
Sampras’ best year was in 1994 when he won 77 and lost 12 for 86.52%. He won 10 tournaments that year including Wimbledon and the Australian Open. He also won the Grand Slam Cup and the ATP Tour World Championships.
In his career Sampras won 64 tournaments with a career winning percentage of 77.44 before retiring at an extremely young age of 31. Sampras went out on a high note by winning the 2002 US Open. Would he have won more majors if he continued? I don’t know.
Many at the time called Pete Sampras the GOAT because he broke the record that Roy Emerson held for majors. Emerson held the record for years with 12 majors. When Sampras broke the record and moved the needle to 14, some said the record would last for ages.
That prediction was obviously was incorrect. Federer broke Sampras’ record it seemed about 2 seconds later, then Nadal surpassed him and then Djokovic moved the needle further forward.
Another reason was that in the past, I mean the 1930s and before. Travel conditions were far tougher. Players would travel by boat and they would take weeks to get to their destination. Very few wanted to do that.
A more realistic way to see the record was to look at the Women’s Record book. Margaret Court holds the record for most majors won with 24. She played all the top players as an amateur and as a pro. So a more reasonable number for the record for majors for the men if Open Tennis was always around and if travel conditions are like what they are now is in the 20s area. Now if someone somedays moves the majors record to the 30s, that would be really something.
Sampras won 14 majors in 52 attempts.I think is Sampras’ most impressive record was his 6 straight years of being year-end No. 1 and not that he won 14 majors. That is fantastic and it shows Pete Sampras was the class of tennis for those six years in a row.
Pete Sampras had another major impact on tennis: He was Novak Djokovic’s tennis hero and inspired the Serbian superstar to win Wimbledon.
Roger Federer
The Swiss Maestro is quite simply one of the most gifted players our sport has ever seeon.
You would figure with his innate talent that he would have burst onto the stage as a young teenager and take the tennis world by storm. Federer eventually did take the tennis world by storm but it would be a few years later.
Federer made his initial breakthrough in the majors at the 2003 Wimbledon, where he defeated Mark Philippoussis in straight sets. It was a brilliant exhibition of tennis which we would become accustomed to virtually the rest of his career. Federer did not win the US Open later that year as many might have expected. He was defeated by his nemesis at the time, David Nalbandian in the fourth round.
Federer became the dreaded juggernaut Roger Federer starting in 2004. It would be the first time Federer won 3 majors in a year! Federer won the Australian, Wimbledon and the US Open that year. Except for an upset by Gustavo Kuerten in the 4th round in the French Open he may have won the Calendar Year Grand Slam. Not that beating Kuerten on red clay at the French is easy but Guga was past his peak, had some injuries so it was quite feasible that Federer should have beaten Kuerten. I believe this year, in retrospect, was Federer’s best chance for the Calendar Year Grand Slam. In future years, the clay juggernaut Rafael Nadal would be in his and everyone else’s way to winning the French. Essentially, after 2004, Nadal owned the French Open.
From 2004 to 2008, Federer won 381 matches and lost only 39 for an awesome winning percentage of 90.71. Very few in the history of tennis have won over 90% of their matches over a 5-year span. Borg, Connors and Lendl did it. John McEnroe came close but barely missed with a percentage of 89.63 from 1981 to 1985. The players I’m mentioning here are from the Open Era only.
Incidentally Lendl is extremely underrated as a player. He was No. 1 for at least 4 years. I’m not sure that all the WCT tournaments he won in 1982 were counted. If they did, perhaps, at least by points he may have been No. 1. Lendl won the extremely prestigious WCT finals that year which is basically a major.
John McEnroe was officially No. 1 in 1982. He won 5 tournaments out of 10 finals. He was in the Wimbledon final and US Open semifinal, losing to Lendl. His record was 71-9 for 88.75%.
Ivan Lendl was officially No. 3 in 1982 to McEnroe and Connors. Lendl won 15 tournaments, was in 5 finals as a runner up, including the US Open final in which he lost to Connors. Lendl was 106-9 for the year for 92.17%. I have a hunch they didn’t count some of the tournaments in the WCT Lendl won. Of course McEnroe was in the finals of Wimbledon which is a lot of points.
There’s a good argument that Lendl should have been, at least by points, No. 1 in 1982 which would have made it 5 years in which he was No. 1.
The only reason I did not include Lendl in this article was that I have not seen anyone who called Lendl the GOAT, which is a surprise to me. In today’s game, Lendl would do extremely well. I think on today’s Wimbledon grass, where you can hit groundstrokes consistently, that Lendl probably would have won a few Wimbledons if the grass surface and the racquets were the same as they are today.
I recall an old-time player calling Lendl the best hitter of the ball since Don Budge which is a fabulous compliment.
Anyway 1982 was an unusual year. McEnroe was officially No. 1 by ATP points which is a great honor. Jimmy Connors, however, was the International Tennis Federation World Champion with 2 majors in Wimbledon and the US Open. There’s a good argument for any of the 3 players to be No. 1.
Lendl was perhaps the most consistently great throughout the year. If you take into account that he won the WCT finals and was in the finals of the US Open I believe Lendl had perhaps more than a good argument to be No. 1 in 1982.
To get back to Federer, from 2004 to 2008 Federer won a superhuman 12 of 20 majors entered. He was in 4 finals and 2 semifinals. The defeats in the 4 finals were by Rafael Nadal. Three of those final losses were at the French where Nadal seemingly cannot be beaten and the other one was at the 2008 Wimbledon, a match many call the Greatest Match of All Time. If it was not the greatest match, it certainly is in the top few.
Federer in those days seemed to be in every final and generally seemed to win almost every final match. People early on were already calling Federer the GOAT, which I thought was a little premature. However it does seem to be often the case with many No. 1 players.
Federer seemed so smooth and so overwhelming that it didn’t seem to be an unreasonable assumption to call him the GOAT, even at this early point in his career. Somehow even if Federer was way behind in a match, you would just assume he would come back and win. It of course didn’t happen all the time but quite often.
Federer’s consistent greatness in every match is one of the reasons why so many have called him the GOAT. Some players can be magnificent in some matches and yet in the next match they could barely hit a ball over the net. This was never the case with Federer. He almost never was upset by inferior players and usually advanced deep into every tournament he entered.
Federer seemed to have every shot. A great serve, a very good volley, great overhead, a forehand many have called the greatest forehand ever and a top-notch backhand with variety.
In fact, massive server Nick Kyrgios has called the Federer chip backhand return one of his greatest weapons because “Federer can completely neutralize big servers with that chip backhand.”
Federer’s peak level was astounding. Federer started his career with a record 7-0 mark in Grand Slam finals. He was the first male player to win 20 majors. His 103 tournaments won is second in the Open Era officially only to Jimmy Connors with 109 although Connors may have won more than 109.
Overall, in majors Federer won 20 majors in 81 attempts for a percentage of 24.69.
For Adjusted ATP points per tournament he is third in the Open Era to Nadal and Djokovic. It’s possible that some others may be a bit higher but the ATP points system has been changed a few times. So for the current system Federer is third.
Obviously, Federer is in the conversation for GOAT in tennis.
Here’s Federer defeating Nadal in the 2007 Wimbledon Final.
Here’s Federer defeating Andy Roddick in the 2009 Wimbledon Final.
Rafael Nadal
Rafael Nadal is one of the most unique players in tennis history. His lefty spins, warrior mentality, his ability to hit winners when most players might be cringing in terror is fantastic.
Nadal of course is best known for his ownership of the French Open. His game is just perfect for the red clay of Roland Garros. He could hit with such heavy topspin power that he could attack with safety margin. His lefty forehand, arguably the greatest in history, hit to a right hander’s backhand has destroyed many players. He could hit that forehand anywhere. It seemed to be no problem when he was playing well to flick his forehand down the line for a winner when he needed it.
His topspin backhand was excellent and if needed he could hit a slice backhand extremely well.
Nadal, when he wasn’t hurt, had great mobility and footwork. There were so many times I’ve watched him run far around his backhand to hit winners with his forehand when most would be content to hit a strong backhand.
In many ways, it is unfortunate for Roger Federer that Nadal came around to totally dominate the clay court season. Federer may very well have won a few Grand Slams. Then again you could say that about a few players in tennis history. But that I mean if the circumstances were different and they had different opponents, they would have won the Grand Slam.
Nadal won 22 majors in 68 attempts in his career. This is a percentage of 32.35. The French Open is ridiculous. From the time he won his first French Open to the time he won his last French Open, Nadal won the French 14 times in 18 years! Overall he won the French Open 14 times in 19 years for a percentage of 73.68. His record at the French Open is 112-4 which is something you only see in video games. Novak Djokovic was the only one to defeat Nadal twice at the French Open while losing 8 times.
Here's Nadal winning his 21st major at the Australian Open in 2022. Tremendous emotion from everyone in the crowd, the announcers and of course Nadal.
Here’s Nadal winning his first Australian Open in 2009. I would like to mention that the 3 hour and 46-minute mark was perhaps the greatest rally these two have played. That is saying something!
Novak Djokovic
Grand Slam king Novak Djokovic has won a stupendous 24 Grand Slam championships.
It’s funny, while Nadal and Federer and some other players are known for great shots like their forehand, people don’t single out any individual stroke of Djokovic’s except perhaps his backhand.
I think that’s because every shot of Djokovic is strong. His forehand is vastly underrated. It’s a fantastic shot. His backhand is unerring and powerful. He can change direction of a shot perhaps better than any player. I saw a study of the fastest players in tennis a few years ago and the top two were Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray.
His serve is excellent and his service return has been called the best in history.
In other words, there are no real weaknesses for Novak Djokovic. I suppose some have argued that the overhead is a bit of a weakness but he does put the great majority of overheads away.
Djokovic accomplished much of this at a relatively slow start. Starting in 2011, Djokovic was the best player in tennis over the next decade plus. From 2011 to 2023 Djokovic won 23 majors out of 48 attempts! In his career Djokovic has won 24 majors in 77 attempts, which is 31.17%.
As of June of 2025 Djokovic has won 100 tournaments in 309 attempts for 32.36%.
The percentages would be great in any era but considering that he had to face the other members of the Big Four it is particularly amazing. So many of those finals featured Nadal, Federer or Andy Murray as his opponents. And of course Djokovic could meet several of those players on his way to the final, if he made the final.
Stan Wawrinka was also a huge factor in many of the tournaments during Djokovic’s time. Wawrinka was extremely strong in defeating Djokovic in the 2015 French Open final and the 2016 US Open Final.
Here’s Djokovic defeating Nadal in the 2018 Wimbledon semi-final in five sets. Djokovic went on to defeat Kevin Anderson in straight sets in the final 6-2 6-2 7-6.
So what can we make of this? Well, obviously tennis has changed a lot over the decades so I’ll break it down to categories of those who only played in the Pre-Open Era, those who played in the Pre-Open Era and Open Era. Those who played only in the Open Era.
Pre-Open Era only
We have Bill Tilden, Ellsworth Vines, Don Budge, Jack Kramer.
All are clearly great players with very few, if any stroke weaknesses. While traditionally, most tennis experts rank Don Budge as one of, if not the greatest ever, I found some flaws in his great record. First of all, while his 1938 Grand Slam was fantastic, players like Vines, Perry, Tilden, Nusslein, and von Cramm were not able to play the majors. All of these players, especially Vines, Perry and Nusslein would be huge threats to win those tournaments, especially Vines.
Budge did defeat Vines on the first tour barely. But then again, Riggs defeated Budge on tour also. And I was influenced by the fact Riggs did give him huge problems when he was in his prime and Riggs wasn’t nearly the player, he would be later. Riggs won 10 of 15 from Budge on tour in 1942, Budge’s peak.
Very few rank Bobby Riggs over Don Budge because of Budge’s injury. Well, Vines was injured also and yet barely lost.
Budge defeated a 48-year-old Tilden on tour by 46-7-1 which, while a one-sided tour, to me says more about Tilden’s greatness than anything else that he won 7 matches over a peak Budge at Tilden’s advanced age.
Budge for example in his late thirties and early forties almost never beat Kramer, Gonzalez and Segura for example. As far as what I’ve seen, Budge defeated those 3 around 2 or 3 times in total! Budge was younger than Tilden was when Tilden played Budge.
Kramer’s peak was awesome and arguably could be the top for peak level. But he had some bad luck with injuries. He did play a long time and won many tours over greats like Riggs, Segura, Sedgman and Gonzalez.
Vines, for many, had the highest level when he was playing well. If you look at his record he played well almost all the time. His record in the amateurs and in the pros was magnificent. He defeated Tilden easily on tour and Tilden was still very strong. He defeated Perry several times on tour and many others. His winning percentages were excellent. He barely lost to Budge on tour despite a bad shoulder injury that affected his serve, which was the best in tennis. In some matches Vines had to serve underhanded, he was in such pain.
Tilden’s record is fabulous. He won a tremendous number of tournaments and had high winning percentages. He won tours when he was in the pros over great players like Nusslein.
The only player I will eliminate here is Don Budge.
Players who spanned the Pre-Open Era and Open Era
The players here now are Pancho Gonzalez, Lew Hoad and Rod Laver.
Let’s discuss Lew Hoad first. Hoad was a physical specimen of the highest order. He was fast, immensely powerful, and had wrists of steel that allowed him to flick tennis shots beyond the ability of even very strong human beings. Hoad had a huge serve. Some actually thought his serve was hit harder than Pancho Gonzalez!
He also apparently had a very powerful backhand and forehand. If you read about his strokes, the man seemed virtually invincible. The record however shows he was not unbeatable. According to many, including Jack Kramer, Hoad hit a lot of winners, but he also made a lot of unforced errors. Not exactly the best formula for being unbeatable.
His archrival Ken Rosewall (incidentally Rosewall seems to be the archrival of so many, Hoad, Gonzalez, Laver for example) was the opposite. Not the strongest serve, excellent return which neutralized many big servers, great volley and very few errors. High percentage shots. Rosewall won a lot more tournaments in his career.
I would be remiss if I didn’t mention Hoad’s major problem, which was his back injury. Perhaps if he was 100%, he would have been able to fulfill his great promise and live up to his great potential.
Still, injuries are a part of the game and I would have to eliminate Hoad from consideration here.
Pancho Gonzalez
As I wrote earlier, Pancho Gonzalez is the most underrated player perhaps in tennis history. I could also add Ellsworth Vines to that also.
Pancho Gonzalez was not only a great tennis player but a great athlete. Standing at 6’3.5 inches his serve was arguably the greatest in the history of the game. His volley and overhead was superb. His movement was excellent and he was comfortable on all surfaces.
Gonzalez was possibly the best tennis player on Earth for over a decade and he was one of the top players in the world for longer than that.
Gonzalez’s peak level was extremely high and his career level and accomplishments stunning if you examine it historically instead of superficially looking only at majors won as your criteria.
Gonzalez was one of the best players in the world from the late 1940s to the 1970s. He defeated players like Tilden, Rosewall, Hoad, Sedgman, Segura, Trabert, Olmedo, Cooper, Anderson, Gimeno, Laver, Ashe, Smith, Newcombe and Connors. That is a ridiculous list of great opponents over a long span of time.
Rod Laver
Laver wasn’t a particularly tall man at about 5’8.5” tall but at his peak he arguably had the most power of any player in the game at the time he played. Laver’s hero growing up was Lew Hoad.
Let’s not forget he was considered small when he was playing at his peak also yet he was, in some years, by far the best player.
Laver was a left-handed player who learned how to hit with heavy topspin on the backhand very early because his coach thought it was the best way for a smaller player like him to hit the ball hard and keep it in play. While this seems easy now, with the old heavy small 65 inch wood racquets, it was quite tough. Very few could hit with the heavy topspin on the backhand that Laver did and on the forehand too.
Laver’s left arm was so large that it seemed deformed. This gave him the strength for great power and spin. His variety seemed infinite. He had power and touch.
Laver won 2 Grand Slams as I mentioned earlier including the 1969 Open Grand Slam. These accomplishments are but a fraction of the many reasons that Laver can be called the GOAT.
Laver won more than 200 tournaments in his career which I believe will never be broken.
He played on the Old Pro Tour from 1963 to 1967 and was the top player for most of those years. He continued his dominance into the Open Era and won 45 tournaments in his first three years. Laver eventually toned down his tournament activity but up to his last full year in 1975, he was one of the top players in the world.
I would say the two top players of the ones who played in the Pre-Open Era and the Open Era are Pancho Gonzalez and Rod Laver. I would eliminate Lew Hoad, as great as he was from consideration.
Players who played in the Open Era Only
Jimmy Connors, Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe, Pete Sampras, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic.
Frankly I think just about all these players have some reasonable reasons why they could be the GOAT.
Jimmy Connors, by a few computerized analyses, was ranked No. 1.
Bjorn Borg was a true comet in the tennis world. He won about 106 tournaments in his career and his Games Won Percentages were the best of the Open Era, easily.
McEnroe for example was for 1 year in 1984 just unbelievable. He was 82-3, won 2 of 3 majors he entered and was in the finals of the other one. His Games Won Percentage was great.
Sampras was No. 1 for 6 straight years before retiring at a very young age in his early 30s.
Roger Federer, well you can discuss how perhaps he was the best player ever for 5 years.
Rafael Nadal, if not for all his injuries, may have even done better but still is arguably the GOAT.
Djokovic, by today’s standards, has the majors record, which many regard as the top criteria but his average adjusted ATP Points is the highest of the Open Era! Bear in mind that some of the early players in the Open Era did not have the same point system. Some players, if you count all the tournaments played may possibly have a higher Average Adjusted ATP points if they had that system in the day.
As I wrote, I’m not necessarily picking the GOAT, I’m just discussing why standards of tennis excellence have changed over the years and different evidence for great levels of play at their peaks and career should be looked at. So we have to look less superficially at the records of Old Time Players instead of being lazy and just counting majors.
In general, I think that most of the greats of the past would be fabulous today. Bill Tilden was a tennis genius and essentially the Father of the Modern Tennis Game. The generations that came after him were hitting strokes that he popularized and taught. Tilden had all the strokes, was very fast, mentally strong and had an answer to everything. He was always learning and trying to improve. The man was 6’2” tall so height would not be a problem in today’s game. I’m sure he would have adapted well.
Rod Laver was about 5’8.5” tall at his peak, some had him taller at his peak. Not particularly tall but he was immensely powerful with his huge forearms and wrists that he could just flick shots back with great power and spin. Laver, like many of the greats, had every shot and more. Laver also hit the ball very early, sometimes in his day right off the half volley.
My thoughts are this about Laver in the modern game. Laver was considered small in his day also but he was able to hit with more power and spin than anyone in the sport and he was by far the number 1 player at his peak. David Ferrer was about the same height as Laver, yet he was top 10 for years and reached number 3 in the world in 2013.
Laver, I believe, was much more gifted than David Ferrer. Faster, more powerful and he was a lefty, which does help. So, I do think if Laver was playing today, he would be battling for number 1, even in the Big Four Era. Laver has admitted that he would probably change his grip.
Players like Gonzalez, Kramer, Budge and Vines would have no problems imo to adapting to today. Gonzalez was 6’3.5”, Kramer 6’2”, Budge 6’1” and Vines 6’2.5” tall.
Raymond Lee is a Tennis Now contributing writer, tennis historian and avid tennis player who lives in New York. He has written about tennis for more than three decades serving as a contributing writer for Tennis Week Magazine and TennisWeek.com. Raymond Lee joined the Tennis Now staff in 2010.
Check out Raymond Lee's Articles: The Greatest Over Age 30 Players of All Time, Star Turns: Top Tournament Performances in Tennis History, One for One: Who is the GOAT for One Match? Celebrating 50th Anniversary of John Newcombe's 1973 US Open Win, Why Novak Djokovic Can Win 30 Slams and Holy Grail: Why Winning the Calendar Grand Slam is Toughest Task in Sport and The Greatest Men Clay-Court Champions Of All Time