Discussion in 'General Sports' started by Wrigley, Sep 26, 2018.
Who's on the Men's Mt. Rushmore? I'll take Federer, Nadal, Sampras, and Djokovic.
Fed, Rafa, Rod Laver and Nole. I have Sampras 5th.
I agree, except my #5 would be Borg. One more GS and I would move Nole ahead of Laver.
Yup, but I think I agree that Borg is 5th.
Feds, Nadal, Laver and Nole. HMs would be Sampras and Borg, Nole is definitely ahead of them now though.
IMO, it's Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Laver (it's pretty crazy how 3 of the top 4 players ever all played against one another within a 10-15 yr span).
I wanna put Borg on this list too but he simply retired far too early and that has ultimately affected his totality in stats compared to the other players above. If we just went by peak play and accomplishments by age 25, then Borg would easily be at or near the top of Mt Rushmore.
I can't put Sampras on this list either because 1. He's not as versatile compared to other GOAT candidates since he was VERY bad on clay and never even sniffed winning RG, 2. His competition during his prime years were worse than those above, and 3. His peak stretches were lower than all those other guys mentioned as well.
I’m not as big of a fan of tennis as some others, but is this “the Golden period” of the sport?
Arguably the 3 best ever playing at the same time.
It actually really sucks for other players like Murray, it’s a really daunting task to break through these 3 monsters.
Oh yeah it's easily the strongest era of tennis. Prior to this gen, only one player EVER hit 14 slams and that was Pete Sampras in 2002. In the last 15 years, 3 players have done so, with one of them at 17 and the other at 20!! And what makes it 100x more impressive is that A LOT of their slams were won through beating either in the latter stages.
Some of this era's "detractors" like to point to the lack of depth in the field after the big three but that's clearly false. Beyond the big three, you got Andy Murray and Stan Wawrinka who both won 3 slams, and Murray would've certainly won a lot more had he played in any other era, while peak Wawrinka is as dangerous as any player can be. Then you got players like Del Potro who also has an incredibly high peak, and has fought back from multiple career threatening injuries. After that, you got players like Cilic, Berdych, Tsonga, Ferrer, Monfils, etc. who easily dispatch lesser players while also hanging around the top 10 for like 10+ years which is unheard of from "second tier players." More recently, there's players like Isner and Anderson who are having career peaks in their 30's which is also unheard of considering they were both borderline journeymen until the last few years when they hit 30.
The only thing is the younger gens. Players like Dimitrov, Thiem, Raonic, and Nishikori have NOT lived up to their hype at all, while the current next gen players like Zverev, Shapo, Chung, Khachenov, FAA, etc. are clearly still not ready to overtake Fed, Rafa and Nole. So in some ways the lack of production from players born in the 1990's has contributed to the longevity of the big three, but a lot of the times, its the big three not allowing the younger guys to win more...at least for now
Separate names with a comma.