Who is the Greatest Male Tennis Player of All Time?
Between January 1 2004 and today, October 13 2020, only 10 men have won a Grand Slam single’s title. By comparison, 27 women have managed the same feat over the same time period.
While the women’s game has been dominated by Serena Williams in that time, she’s won 17 of the 67 slams available, that still leaves 26 women winning 50 available slams. A pretty decent spread, with one clear outlier who defines the generation and comfortably takes the crown as the greatest of her time, if not all time.
Meanwhile the men’s game has had to deal with three players taking up the lion’s share of the gold. You may have heard of them, they are Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic.
In that time they have won 56 of a possible 67 grand slam titles.
The grand slams only come around four times a year. They take place in Australia, France, England and the United States and they are tennis’ most prestigious tournament. The only other competitions worthy of a similar prestige are the Olympic gold medal event and the World Tour Finals. But even they are a level below the grandeur of a Grand Slam™.
It wasn’t always this way, it is a very modern obsession, as noted in this excellent breakdown of this phenomenon by Jack Kessler.
More weight is placed on grand slam success than any other tournament. It is the measure of true greatness in the modern game. It makes comparing the differences between the likes of Rod Laver and Bjorn Borg with Federer and Nadal very complex. But comparisons between Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are much easier to categorise for the same reasons.
With Nadal’s dominant victory of Djokovic at the French Open final last Sunday, the Spaniard won 6–0 6–2 7–5, he has now matched Federer’s haul of 20 slam titles. Djokovic is three further behind on 17. This is the first time that Nadal and Federer have been level in the slam count since they were both on zero in 2003.
But is it as simple as measuring their greatness on their grand slam count?
Frankly, this is far too simplistic an outlook for such an incredibly compelling, winding, tense and unpredictable rivalry.
There are just far too many other factors involved that to boil it down to who won the most slams would be a disservice to all three men.
Their accomplishments are certainly unmatched in the men’s game. There are arguments to be made about Borg or Laver, or even Pete Sampras or Andre Agassi, but for most fans the three of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are the three greatest male tennis players of all time and their dominance will never be seen again. They are simply: the Big Three.
There was a time when it was considered a Big Four. The inclusion of Andy Murray was entirely valid, he had solidified himself as one of the four best players in the world every year alongside the other three. He has reached 11 slam finals himself and his consistency was very impressive in its own right. But his total of three slam titles, as well as missing the last three years on the sidelines with injury, means he has been lost to the dominance of the Big Three.
The only other player to win multiple slams in this period is a fellow Swiss Stanislas Wawrinka. His total of three is certainly an amazing achievement, particularly his Australian (2014) and French (2015) Open wins due to his accomplishment of the rare feat of beating two members of the Big Three en route to victory.
But his lack of overall consistency means he is nowhere near this conversation. While his absolute peak tennis was good enough to compete on the biggest of stages, he simply lacked the skills that the Big Three made look so easy. His overall total of ATP title wins pales in comparison, as does his consistency in making the late stages of the slam events themselves. This is also what puts Murray’s career a level above Wawrinka’s.
So, how do we determine the greatest male tennis player of all time?
Well, the debate and the parameters aren’t easy. If we are to go deeper than just slam count than how deep should we go?
Looking at the records in grand slam events, where the boys are separated from the men, then there is very little to choose between. Each player has their own unique accomplishments that, when given true consideration, are completely mind boggling.
For Federer, his level of consistency between 2004 and 2010 is unmatched. At slam level, he reached 23 semi final appearances in a row in this period. The next highest number of consecutive semi final slam performances is 14, from Djokovic.
Between 2005–2007, Federer reached 10 slam finals in a row, winning eight of those. The next best record is eight finals reached in a row, also by Federer from 2008–2010, winning four more in that run.
His streak of 36 consecutive quarter final appearances, from 2004–2013 is remarkable. This shows a level of consistency that cannot be beaten. Nine years in a row of reaching the final eight stage of every grand slam.
The next best is 28 from Djokovic. A theme is beginning to emerge, if one of these guys don’t top the list, they will almost certainly be second or third. This emphasises their greatness, their only rivals in historic terms still come from each other.
What Nadal lacks in this form of consistency, he more than makes up for in the clay season. Last Sunday’s French Open victory was his 13th there. Nadal’s French Open titles alone would be enough to rank him fifth in the all-time grand slam wins record. His seven other titles include one Australian Open (2009), two Wimbledons (2008 & 2010) and four US Opens (2010, 2013. 2017 & 2019).
Three of those French titles were won without dropping a set, including this year’s edition which he won at the age of 34. In simpler terms, this means winning 21 sets in a row. This is incredibly difficult even against ‘weaker’ opposition.
When Federer won the 2007 Australian Open without dropping a single set, this was the first time that had been achieved by a slam winner since Borg achieved the feat in 1980. Federer has since managed it again, winning the 2017 Wimbledon without losing a set once. He managed that at the age of 36.
For Djokovic, his greatest achievements might be the most remarkable of all. He is the only man, alongside Laver, in the Open Era to win four grand slam titles in a row.
From 2015–2016, he won Wimbledon, the US Open, Australia and then the French Open all in a row. In fact, he won seven of eight grand slam titles if we stretch the run back a further 12 months.
His defeat in the 2015 French Open final to Wawrinka in four sets was the only defeat he suffered from Wimbledon 2014 to his sole French Open title in 2016.
And all of that is just their records at the four grand slam tournaments. During the regular tennis season they are just as dominant. The three men all rank inside the top five for most overall ATP titles won. A massive 270 won between them.
They sit atop the chart for most Masters 1000 events won. These tournaments are the most prestigious of the regular ATP schedule and offer the most ranking points for victory.
Djokovic has the most Masters titles, with 36, and he is the only man to have won all nine events. Not only that, but he has won all nine events twice.
Nadal has dominated the clay titles, his records on that surface will never be matched. While he is weaker during the regular clay season, relative to his French Open success, his win record still far exceeds any of his rivals.
Federer is slightly off the pace on Masters events, having won “only” 28. But it must be noted that there is only one non-slam event that takes place on grass courts every season. With eight Wimbledon titles, grass is Federer’s preferred surface and the lack of competitions on grass has stifled his potential to boost his records. Though he has won 103 ATP titles, so he’s more than made up for it in the long-run.
If their records aren’t to be separated, they have all accomplished incredible feats of their own, then how can they really be separated?
Looking at their head to head record is a valuable way. How they compete against each other is one way of determining who is the greatest. In this department, Nadal has the overall advantage. His win percentage (53.125%) against his two biggest rivals just beats out Djokovic (52.8%).
Federer’s overall win percentage (43.3%) is certainly a weakness, but it must also be remembered that Federer is five years older than Nadal and six years older than Djokovic. That is a long time in any sport, let alone tennis.
Federer’s prime years (2004–2010) overlapped with the early parts of Djokovic’s career, where they only met 19 times. They met 25 times during the Serbian’s peak years (2011–2015).
During their 19 meetings from 2004–2010, Federer won 13 times (68.4%). Djokovic won 16 of their 25 matches (64%) from 2011–2015.
Nadal’s peak years would be considered from 2008–2011. This means there is some overlap with Federer’s prime, which led to eight meetings between 2008 and 2010. In this period, Nadal won six of those meetings. Five of those matches took place on clay, with Nadal winning four.
It is this period where Nadal’s prime essentially brings Federer’s to an end. Their rivalry was at its most intense during this period and it culminated in possibly the greatest tennis match of all time. The 2008 Wimbledon final, their third meeting in that final in a row, was Nadal’s crowning achievement. For all his French Open wins, beating prime Federer at Wimbledon, where he had won the last five titles in a row, remains his greatest feat.
Their rivalry has since faded. Their post-prime period has seen an equalling out of their head to head record. It was once dominated by the Spaniard, but Federer has now won seven of their last eight meetings, stretching back to 2015. The one loss? You guessed it, the French Open.
Nadal’s rivalry with Djokovic is more even. Djokovic’s prime began when Nadal’s ended, injuries catching up with him and causing him to slow down after an incredibly rapid rise to the top.
The pair met 21 times from 2008–2011 and 23 times from 2011–2015. Looking specifically at 2011, the overlapping period, Djokovic won all six meetings that year in what was his best season on tour.
Their 21 matches during Nadal’s peak saw a record of 10–11 (47.6%) in favour of Djokovic. The record of 7–16 (30.4%) during Djokovic’s peak years is even worse. Their overall head to head against each other is 27–29 (48.2%) is pretty even but who was better at their best in this rivalry is actually quite clear.
What these figures really tell us, though, is that these three are the rock, paper, scissors of tennis. Deciding which is best is a roundabout exercise with no correct answer.
Determining who is best is now a matter of splitting hairs. Each person may have their preference, but their careers have lasted so impossibly long that if you’re mind isn’t already made up then this article won’t convince you to swing one way over the others.
At this stage, the only thing that truly separates the three is how they play the game.
Djokovic is the baseline grinder, he will outlast his opponents and win matches even where it seemed like he was being outplayed. He has the mental attributes to beat anyone and the defensive capabilities to last longer than anyone else. Watching his matches are often a marathon, not a sprint.
The magical moments will come from his bizarre and almost unnatural elasticity. The audience are constantly questioning how he not only reached that ball but how he hit it back over the net so well. Winning against him takes guts, takes more effort than against anyone else and most importantly requires the belief that it’s even possible to beat him.
Nadal has the all round game to kill anyone on the court. He can bloody and bludgeon a ball to the point that the opponent won’t even see the ball as it flies past them. There is no real clear weakness in his game and, much like Djokovic, he will never give up in a rally, always chasing the next ball.
Nadal gets the crowd on his feet dozens of times a match. He does it with his on-court attitude, his never give up spirit and his incredible swing motion that puts a delightful arc on a ball that sees it land inside the line from a seemingly impossible position. Beating him requires the toughest of defences matched with the most accurate of offenses.
Finally, there is Federer. While Djokovic and Nadal share many qualities in how they play tennis, Federer’s skill set is the most unique of the three. His two rivals may seem more like a wall on court, but Federer often looks like a swan.. His game is not built on a stern defence, though his footwork and foot-speed is just as good as the best of them when called upon, but it is built on out-striking his opponent.
His magical moments are more obvious, his incredible swing of the ball looks as graceful as anything you’ll see on a tennis court. His one-handed backhand is built on an aggressive style and looks as good as it is powerful.
His big serve has become an underrated attribute. He might not quite have the speed of an Andy Roddick, but he can still hit them as hard as anyone, but more importantly he can do so accurately and consistently. Even on an off day, his serve will earn him points and games that keep him with a great chance of victory.
Beating him requires the most stubborn of defences and hoping that Federer’s own offensive game can be worn away until it starts to let him down. This can look like, at times, that Federer is beating himself, unnecessarily giving away cheap points from unforced errors, but it only comes from the toughest defensive tennis that requires him to go for the biggest shots so often.
The fact these three guys all still occupy top four spots in the rankings at their age is simply remarkable. Federer has missed most of 2020 through injury, and the pandemic has meant Nadal and Djokovic haven’t seen much action this year either. But going into 2021, all three still plan to compete at the highest level.
Getting to watch them do so at the ages of 33, 34 and 39 is a privilege and one all tennis fans must cherish. Who is the greatest of all time? Who cares, let’s enjoy them while we still can.
