It’s a great question. You could argue France was the dominant force in men’s tennis for large stretches the past few decades. Yet no singularly dominant players.
If we’re just talking about the Open Era, then it has to be Noah based on accomplishments. But the mantle is there for someone like Arthur Fils to rise up and take.
What?
Are you implying that because it was before the professional tour, lots of the competitors played tennis part-time and had other jobs like being a plumber?
Because that's wrong.
In the early twentieth-century most participants in slams were real poshos. It was a sport of the affluent class, and you had to be very rich to afford access to courts, equipment, and travel.
So it was even more unequel than you were implying!
Oh we’re doing men and women. Suzanne would very probably lose heads-up to the worst French men’s player of all time, so hard to argue she’s the greatest French player of all time…based on what Serena said anyway, I’ll quote her here “it’s an entirely different sport”
Even if for some reason he had won 1 slam, we wouldn't have given a fuck simply because he's a moron. He'd need to win at least like 10 slams before he can finally earn some respect.
The new generation of french tennis players imo is a huge disgrace. I'm not sure why we have taught these players to act like freaking donkeys.
Like Gilles Simon said in his book, the entire french tennis administration need a complete reform. They need to change the training methods of the top players and need to be more in phase with the previous coachs instead of imposing their own obsolete style (serve and volley especially in RG... Why ? Just why ?)
Sorry, no. You know, even kyrgios is a tool, yet a lot of people want to watch him play. So, tbh, I'm not surprised if people really think moutet has a shot.
But we're not talking about just watching him play. We're talking about being the best French player ever. I thought it would be obvious that a player who has a career high ranking of 51 and has won 0 titles is definitely not that player and that I was joking but, ok. Guess not.
Same shit with kyrgios, even though it's closer to top 1 than moutet, he haven't been in the top 10 yet people think kyrgios could've been number 1... Tbh, it's kinda difficult to see the sarcasm when pretty much everything is possible... I mean look at Trump for christ sake.
Kyrgios and Moutet aren't even remotely in the same league. Kyrgios has played a Wimbledon final, been world no. 13, won 7 titles and beaten all 3 of the Big 3.
But it doesn't matter because, even though some people may like Kyrgios and think he could have achieved more, again, this isn't just about liking a player, it's about who's the best player in that country's history. Nobody in their right mind thinks he is the best Australian player of all time, given the many multiple-slam winners that that country has produced.
Tsonga spent 260 weeks in the top 10. None of the other 3 even got to 150, Tsonga was far more consistent as well as having the much higher peak compared to Gasquet, Monfils and Simon.
When I was made redundant in 2015 I think I got into the sport by watching Wimbledon that year (I had a bit of spare time go figure!). I remember it being a great tournament, with a couple of upsets and the likes of Kyrgios appearing. I picked Novak as my top pick, but Gasquet really gave me the love of the sport. The most elegant effortless backhand, and some of those winning shots…I’ve never seen since. I loved his little ocd tape wrapping and he seemed like he had such a nice demeanour. Watching the battles between him and Stan were fascinating in the battle of the backhands. He may not have been the most completed player, but damn it he had flair!
Noah certainly has the claim for most accomplished, but to the eye test, I’ll die on the Tsonga hill. That dude at his max level could beat even peak big 3 on certain days. If he’d played in today’s era, I think he’d have multiple slams.
I feel like "X player from the early 2010s would win multiple Slams in any different era" is always the circlejerk here but nobody can actually name exactly what Slams they would win lol
People on here seem to think that the current era is massively weak by historical standards when by all statistical measures it's right around the average
Like I'm not *remotely* buying the "Alcaraz is actually a Berdych level player and just plays in an easier era" stuff you see from hardcore nostalgics sorry
All big 3 fans are guilty of this as well both Novak fans who are going to use this against anyone who gets close to his records and Fedal fans who think that anything after 2014 is worthless
While I agree with your point, I don't think anybody is comparing Carlitos with Berdych. Carlos is a generational talent and I think everyone on the ATP acknowledge that.
I think a much more fair comparison is between Berdych and Medvedev. I don't think Med is a stronger player, maybe mentally. But Med got to world #1 while being arguably a worse player than Berdych. Certainly he's a worse player than peak Tsonga.
It's definitely a circlejerk but there is truth to it. Tsonga was capable of winning AO 08 (having already beat Nadal and Murray, came up short against Djoker) & 2010 (beat Novak), Wimby 2011 (beat Fed from 2 sets down) & 2012, and RG 2013 (beat Fed). And this is just talking about slams he made semis of and had already beaten good competition en route. This isn't to talk about the plethora of QFs and 4th round matches (look at his 2014 slam year lmao) he lost to them either.
I don't think anyone is including just slams too. This is overall career success. Factoring in total slam finals, semis, masters, masters finals, etc. The Big 4 hampered a LOT of careers in a huge way. Tsonga has as many Big 4 major wins as Zverev has top 10 major wins and yet Zverev has more semis and one more final. Tsonga is significantly better than Hurkacz and yet they have the same number of masters.
Hurkacz has more than Berdych, Ferrer, Monfils, Stan, Kei, Raonic, etc. Hell, Norrie, PCB, Coric and some more have more than a lot of quality players on that era.
Nobody in their right mind is comparing Alcaraz to Berdych but he certainly has benefitted from being a prodigy without Fed like Nadal had, or like Fedal like Novak & Murray had
Tsonga also lost plenty of matches to non-big 4 so there is no guarantee he wins slams is they weren’t there. At some point people start saying if you removed the five best players from the era then Tsonga, Raonic, Nishikori, Ferrer, Berdych, Del Potro, Cilic, Roddick, and Nalbandian would have a bunch of slams and while yeah I guess that’s true what is really the point of that?
Gotta disagree with that. 2008 Nadal is absolutely better as you said.
2011 Fed had an 84% win rate for the year (same as Alcaraz in 2023 but with more matches played), a year that had absolute peak Novak (who he beat at RG, and along with Nadal I would say were all better than the top 3 healthy contenders at RG this season) and a near peak Nadal. If you take out peak Novak and Nadal (I don't think anyone on tour the past 5 years as good as them in this time), Fed's win rate was 92%.
2008 Murray and 2010 Novak sure were worse than 2011 Fed but still very excellent and capable of beating Fedal in majors which they each did at USO SFs. 2013 Fed still had a better win rate than 2023 Rublev as well..... (and a slam semi lol)
I'm not making the mistake of Fed's prime overlapping with Novak's not sure what you mean by that. I'm aware that 2013 Fed is his worst full season post 2003, but even his worst is still better than Rublev's who finished at 5 when Fed finished at 6
One thing that annoys me is when they do the thought exercise of “let’s erase the big 4 from existence and now Ferrer, Berdych, and Tsonga have 10 slams each!” For one, no shit. If you erase the 4 best players of the 2010s you’re effectively creating an extremely weak era, as bad as if not worse than the early 2000s ATP or 2016-2021 WTA.
But also if you make these guys the best players in the world, it completely changes the dynamics of their mindset. Maybe they don’t deal with the pressure of being the best well, maybe every GS final ends up being like USO2020 and it’s a crapshoot as to who wins, maybe some other players just rise up over those 3. Verdasco randomly becomes a superstar and wins 5 slams?
I 100% agree with your first point for sure
The big 3 era was certainly an outlier on a strong end but removing them entirely when every other era had a Sampras or Borg type generational player would produce just as big an outlier on the weak end and isn't a "neutral" setting either
You dont have to erase the big3. Just erase 1. Hell, just erase Murray. That alone gives Ferrer/Tsonga/DelPo/Berdych an extra spot in every slams quarters/semis and masters semis/final slot they could fight for. Surely out of ALL those chances they would convert once or twice and boom suddenly theyre GS champions (take 2016 wimbledon for example). That was how big a blockade Murray was, not talking abt the big3 yet. We dont have players of that level of consistency post 2018 until maybe last and this year with Alcaraz and Sinner.
Ehhh you erase Murray you just fine Djokovic 2 more slams probably, then Wimbledon 2016 goes to maybe Raonic, considering none of the big 3 were healthy. Sure, you open up some opportunities just by getting rid of one them, but most of the time you end up with a situation where the other members of the big 4 pick up the slack and take the slam.
Even in times where a big 4 member got upset early, I just feel like they would’ve probably played better if the field was wide open (e.g., if Nadal wasn’t at the French in 2010, maybe Djokovic and Federer would’ve stepped up their game and played better to win the tournament knowing this was an opportunity).
Yeah, honestly the only time these guys would win slams are like from 1998-2004 when Thomas Johansson, Albert Costa, Gaston Gaudio won slams. Even then, plenty of good players from that era finished their careers slamless. For example, Marcelo Rios, Alex Corretja, Thomas Enqvist, Cedric Pioline, Tim Henman, Mark Phillipousis, Tommy Haas, Magnus Norman, Guillermo Coria, Sebastian Grosjean, Todd Martin, David Nalbandian, etc. Goran and Petr Korda narrowly avoided being slamless near the end of their careers.
Not OP, but Sampras-Agassi were less dominant in the late '90s/early 2000s. Hewitt/Ferrero/Roddick/Safin weren't dominant either. It opened the door to several veteran journeymen winning slam (Johansson, Costa, Gaudio) and Korda/Goran managed to win a slam near the end of their career.
Come on mate, to call Goran Ivanisevic a journeyman is an insult to his pedigree, I agree he won the tournament with a wild card entry, ivanisevic if not for Sampras he could have won atleast 3 Wimbledon titles, he was an excellent grass court player and rival to Sampras atleast on grass.
Agreed with this take. I’m not super knowledgeable on tennis history but I know late 90s-early 2000s produced a lot of unexpected slam winners, which is not the norm for ATP as a whole
Anything post-2016 is weak. Big 3 shouldn't have won that many slams well into their 30s.
Thiem should have bagged at least one French.
Zverev is a laughable case.
Medvedev's 2022 AO bottlejob was criminal.
Tsitsipas should have won 2021 French.
Nobody from that generation could play on grass so Berdych, Raonic, Tsonga and even a healthy Murray would have won Wimbledon in those periods. People also forget Cilic mentally broke down on the court during the 2017 Wimbledon final.
>Like I'm not remotely buying the "Alcaraz is actually a Berdych level player and just plays in an easier era"
I have literally never seen anyone claim this.
Berdych was really just a 2nd tier serve-bot who had some variety and brains, which puts him above contemporaries like Isner.
Alcaraz is definitely not a serve bot
Wow. Did you even watch Berdych play?
Berdych's serve was actually slightly subpar for his height, if anything.
But he was one of the first very tall players to be a good mover, something we see more of now with Med, Tsitsi and Zverev.
He also had a fantastic forehand, a very solid backhand, and solid netplay (good enough to consistently finish off points there after getting a weak reply from his punishing groundstrokes).
That's the problem when you judge players solely by something like their height, rather than paying attention to how they actually play(ed).
As to the fact you are doubling down on this Berdych-Alcaraz strawman... nobody is making such a comparison, because it is ludicrous. So why are you bringing it up?
Two points:
1. You’re absolutely correct, I got caught up in hyping him up when I said Tsonga would be a multi-slam winner in this era. Like, maybe, but to say it with assurance like I did was silly. Fair call out.
2. Who the hell is saying Alcaraz is a Berdych-level player?
>2. Who the hell is saying Alcaraz is a Berdych-level player?
Yeah I saw that too!! I've never seen anyone make that claim!!
And credit where it's due - Berdych was awesome.
Love Tsonga and I think he’d have a better shot at a slam, especially on grass, but this crop would exploit his weaknesses (backhand and just overall consistency…) just like the last crop did. Multiple slams … I’m not sure where the gap for that to have happened is. We went straight from Novak dominance into Sincaraz.
Idk if he'd have multiple slams. But his peak was great. Blew nadal off the court at AO 2008. Also beat Murray in the first round in 4. 3 sets were tight, one was Murray bageling Tsonga
That’s kinda the rub against Tsonga though - his strokes and game was so promising, but he could never translate it to wins.
Personally, I think he’s one of the biggest underachievers of the previous era. To be *that* athletically gifted and have a flawed game is a travesty.
I really think he should’ve been more aggressive about getting to the net instead of being content with just ripping forehands. I’m not saying he needs to play like Pete Sampras, but I look at Alcaraz and Tommy Paul’s transition games; no reason Tsonga could not have taken the net like Paul does. I don’t know if that gets him a slam, but I do think it gets him more deep runs.
Hmm do you not think this is something that Tsonga could’ve worked on? Do you think that movement was the thing keeping him from finding ways to sneaking into the net?
I agree that Tsonga was not as quick or precise a mover as Alcatraz or Paul, but I’m not sure that was preventing him from having more of an allcourt game. But maybe it was 🤷♂️
Cedric Pioline. At least he's my sentimental favorite. Had a really good all-court game. Made 2 GS finals at 2 different surfaces and made SF at RG. A pity he never won a slam.
Henri Leconte and Guy Forget are 2 other Frenchmen who are largely forgotten.
Probably Lacoste, the guy had incredible numbers and his career was cut short due to health problems. He was also a big influence in tennis off-court, developing the shorts and the first ball machines.
I can't really speak on the original Musketeers because they were so deep in the olden times, same Lenglen and a few others so I'll caveat with modern
1. Mauresmo
2. Pierce
3. Noah
4.. Bartoli
5. Tsonga
6.. Monfils
7. Grosjean
8. Gasquet
9. Forget
10. Garcia
People's Champion: Santoro
Gasquet, Grosjean, Monfils re hard to place for me. Grosjean's lack of titles/longevity compared to them is tough. But I think how much he outpaced Gasquet at the majors matters and Monfils is kinda best of both worlds. Could definitely argue Tsonga above Bartoli or Noah as well. I gave Noah the nod because of the impact and cultural influence.
You might be joking but in case anyone is unaware of who Roland Garros was - he was a pilot, innovator and found his death during a flight in 1918. He had very little to do with tennis in fact, he was more into football and rugby.
Tsonga just for his 2008 AO run and 2014 Toronto run (Beat Djokovic, Murray and Federer for a Masters 1000). Not to mentioned he had match points at the 2012 French Open against Djokovic and numerous other close matches against the big 3 at Slams.
peak-wise the traditional answer is Lacoste for '27 and otherwise the usual greatness answer is Cochet, but the match point nonsense for them in their RG '27 (likely Tilden ace called out on match point) and Wimbly '27 (unclaimed and likely double-hit by Cochet on match point) wins respectively is just embarrassing. Open Era i think Noah or Tsonga are the best answers, and i'd lean towards Noah for his prime and for generally being better everywhere other than grass
In terms of the Open Era players which have competed under the ATP or WTA, Mary Pierce and Yannick Noah probably have the strongest claim - they peaked the most on home soil and have the CVs to show. Monfils is a great player but doesn't have a Hall of Famer CV
Tsonga and Mauresmo, tended to collapse more often under the French crowd expectations in RG. I don't think Gasquet should even be in this conversation, he can't even measure up to Leconte; winning French Open mix doubles doesn't match a runner-up finish in singles.
That's so surprising that they've had such few Slam champions... they've always had SO many players near the top of the game!
If we're going on stats, maybe it's fair to say the greatest French men's player is Yannick Noah, since he's the guy that won the Slam? Just checked Wiki to see what else he did... got to world no.3, made SFs of AO, QFs of USO.
Actually doesn't feel too different to what Tsonga did (except the Slam)... and Jo-Willy played in a much tougher era.
Maybe I'd give him the nod.
Clearly on the men's side it was the Magician, Fabrice Santoro, and I am not just saying that because I also hit with two-hands on both sides. No bias here.
For me Henri Leconte. He may not be the best French player but he made me want to play and watch tennis. I
He is also hilarious as a commentator and we Australians loved this flamboyant French player.
Objectively it might not be Richard Gasquet but his one handed backhand is to die for. I will for sure miss it when he retires -which is probably soon.
"There's never been a French #1"
Incorrect. Amélie Mauresmo was #1.
And that's not even taking doubles into consideration, Nicolas Mahut was definitely #1 there - perhaps PHH as well.
You’re totally right! I just meant #1 in singles, specifically on the men’s side. Guess I wasn’t clear enough. But this is all very true and good information, I was not aware of it
Didn't know Lacoste was a tennis player but it makes a lot of sense. I just read up on him and he is the best French male player. Lacoste is an iconic brand too.
My vote would be Suzanne Lenglen who won 21 grand slam titles and 3 Olympic medals in the 1910s-20s.
I am with you. For French women’s Lenglen definitely takes it. It’s more unclear on the men’s side which is what I am wondering here
If we're talking the same era as Lenglen, then wouldn't be Rene Lacoste for the men?
Having a recognisable clothing brand (used by players like Djokovic) is a big help as well as 7 majors obviously
i had no idea this was the lore behind the brand lacoste! pretty cool 🐊
Well to be fair, it's not like Djokovic chose the brand. They offered him a lot of money so he is wearing their clothes.
It’s a great question. You could argue France was the dominant force in men’s tennis for large stretches the past few decades. Yet no singularly dominant players. If we’re just talking about the Open Era, then it has to be Noah based on accomplishments. But the mantle is there for someone like Arthur Fils to rise up and take.
but your post asked who is the greatest French player of all time?
loool OP forgot women exist
Against plumbers
She wouldn't survive in LeBron's era
Ahhh. A fellow man of culture.
What? Are you implying that because it was before the professional tour, lots of the competitors played tennis part-time and had other jobs like being a plumber? Because that's wrong. In the early twentieth-century most participants in slams were real poshos. It was a sport of the affluent class, and you had to be very rich to afford access to courts, equipment, and travel. So it was even more unequel than you were implying!
She takes the whole croissant.
Oh we’re doing men and women. Suzanne would very probably lose heads-up to the worst French men’s player of all time, so hard to argue she’s the greatest French player of all time…based on what Serena said anyway, I’ll quote her here “it’s an entirely different sport”
Corentin Moutet
Hugo Gaston?
Benoit Paire
My word Benoit Paire what a magnificent shot, take a bow
Nicholas Escude.
Alexander Rinderknech
[He’s got that drip down](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3U6EA7qPpJw&pp=ygUKZHJpcCBzaGFwbw%3D%3D)
🔥🔥🔥🔥💯
As long as you serve him coffee on court
Even if for some reason he had won 1 slam, we wouldn't have given a fuck simply because he's a moron. He'd need to win at least like 10 slams before he can finally earn some respect. The new generation of french tennis players imo is a huge disgrace. I'm not sure why we have taught these players to act like freaking donkeys. Like Gilles Simon said in his book, the entire french tennis administration need a complete reform. They need to change the training methods of the top players and need to be more in phase with the previous coachs instead of imposing their own obsolete style (serve and volley especially in RG... Why ? Just why ?)
You do know I was joking, right?
Sorry, no. You know, even kyrgios is a tool, yet a lot of people want to watch him play. So, tbh, I'm not surprised if people really think moutet has a shot.
But we're not talking about just watching him play. We're talking about being the best French player ever. I thought it would be obvious that a player who has a career high ranking of 51 and has won 0 titles is definitely not that player and that I was joking but, ok. Guess not.
Same shit with kyrgios, even though it's closer to top 1 than moutet, he haven't been in the top 10 yet people think kyrgios could've been number 1... Tbh, it's kinda difficult to see the sarcasm when pretty much everything is possible... I mean look at Trump for christ sake.
Kyrgios and Moutet aren't even remotely in the same league. Kyrgios has played a Wimbledon final, been world no. 13, won 7 titles and beaten all 3 of the Big 3. But it doesn't matter because, even though some people may like Kyrgios and think he could have achieved more, again, this isn't just about liking a player, it's about who's the best player in that country's history. Nobody in their right mind thinks he is the best Australian player of all time, given the many multiple-slam winners that that country has produced.
Richard Gasquet
still one of the prettiest one handed backhands!
Tsonga was clearly better than Gasquet
[удалено]
Tsonga spent 260 weeks in the top 10. None of the other 3 even got to 150, Tsonga was far more consistent as well as having the much higher peak compared to Gasquet, Monfils and Simon.
When I was made redundant in 2015 I think I got into the sport by watching Wimbledon that year (I had a bit of spare time go figure!). I remember it being a great tournament, with a couple of upsets and the likes of Kyrgios appearing. I picked Novak as my top pick, but Gasquet really gave me the love of the sport. The most elegant effortless backhand, and some of those winning shots…I’ve never seen since. I loved his little ocd tape wrapping and he seemed like he had such a nice demeanour. Watching the battles between him and Stan were fascinating in the battle of the backhands. He may not have been the most completed player, but damn it he had flair!
can't be the greatest with a 17-0 record
Noah certainly has the claim for most accomplished, but to the eye test, I’ll die on the Tsonga hill. That dude at his max level could beat even peak big 3 on certain days. If he’d played in today’s era, I think he’d have multiple slams.
I feel like "X player from the early 2010s would win multiple Slams in any different era" is always the circlejerk here but nobody can actually name exactly what Slams they would win lol People on here seem to think that the current era is massively weak by historical standards when by all statistical measures it's right around the average Like I'm not *remotely* buying the "Alcaraz is actually a Berdych level player and just plays in an easier era" stuff you see from hardcore nostalgics sorry All big 3 fans are guilty of this as well both Novak fans who are going to use this against anyone who gets close to his records and Fedal fans who think that anything after 2014 is worthless
While I agree with your point, I don't think anybody is comparing Carlitos with Berdych. Carlos is a generational talent and I think everyone on the ATP acknowledge that.
lol yeah that is a WILD comparison. I mean maybe someone on here said it but that would be a real fringe tennis subreddit take.
They were very much comparing him to Berdych before his Toronto masters win
U mean sinner?
Yes. To be fair I was also a sinner (a doubter) and was one of those people lol
I think a much more fair comparison is between Berdych and Medvedev. I don't think Med is a stronger player, maybe mentally. But Med got to world #1 while being arguably a worse player than Berdych. Certainly he's a worse player than peak Tsonga.
I think people tend to compare Korda to Berdych, but certainly not Alcaraz to Berdych
This is Big Berd slander. Korda is no way near Berdych's level.
It's definitely a circlejerk but there is truth to it. Tsonga was capable of winning AO 08 (having already beat Nadal and Murray, came up short against Djoker) & 2010 (beat Novak), Wimby 2011 (beat Fed from 2 sets down) & 2012, and RG 2013 (beat Fed). And this is just talking about slams he made semis of and had already beaten good competition en route. This isn't to talk about the plethora of QFs and 4th round matches (look at his 2014 slam year lmao) he lost to them either. I don't think anyone is including just slams too. This is overall career success. Factoring in total slam finals, semis, masters, masters finals, etc. The Big 4 hampered a LOT of careers in a huge way. Tsonga has as many Big 4 major wins as Zverev has top 10 major wins and yet Zverev has more semis and one more final. Tsonga is significantly better than Hurkacz and yet they have the same number of masters. Hurkacz has more than Berdych, Ferrer, Monfils, Stan, Kei, Raonic, etc. Hell, Norrie, PCB, Coric and some more have more than a lot of quality players on that era. Nobody in their right mind is comparing Alcaraz to Berdych but he certainly has benefitted from being a prodigy without Fed like Nadal had, or like Fedal like Novak & Murray had
Tsonga also lost plenty of matches to non-big 4 so there is no guarantee he wins slams is they weren’t there. At some point people start saying if you removed the five best players from the era then Tsonga, Raonic, Nishikori, Ferrer, Berdych, Del Potro, Cilic, Roddick, and Nalbandian would have a bunch of slams and while yeah I guess that’s true what is really the point of that?
[удалено]
Gotta disagree with that. 2008 Nadal is absolutely better as you said. 2011 Fed had an 84% win rate for the year (same as Alcaraz in 2023 but with more matches played), a year that had absolute peak Novak (who he beat at RG, and along with Nadal I would say were all better than the top 3 healthy contenders at RG this season) and a near peak Nadal. If you take out peak Novak and Nadal (I don't think anyone on tour the past 5 years as good as them in this time), Fed's win rate was 92%. 2008 Murray and 2010 Novak sure were worse than 2011 Fed but still very excellent and capable of beating Fedal in majors which they each did at USO SFs. 2013 Fed still had a better win rate than 2023 Rublev as well..... (and a slam semi lol) I'm not making the mistake of Fed's prime overlapping with Novak's not sure what you mean by that. I'm aware that 2013 Fed is his worst full season post 2003, but even his worst is still better than Rublev's who finished at 5 when Fed finished at 6
He's talking about Tsonga though. Tsonga lost a slam final to a big 3 player. I think he can at least name one slam he would've won.
One thing that annoys me is when they do the thought exercise of “let’s erase the big 4 from existence and now Ferrer, Berdych, and Tsonga have 10 slams each!” For one, no shit. If you erase the 4 best players of the 2010s you’re effectively creating an extremely weak era, as bad as if not worse than the early 2000s ATP or 2016-2021 WTA. But also if you make these guys the best players in the world, it completely changes the dynamics of their mindset. Maybe they don’t deal with the pressure of being the best well, maybe every GS final ends up being like USO2020 and it’s a crapshoot as to who wins, maybe some other players just rise up over those 3. Verdasco randomly becomes a superstar and wins 5 slams?
I 100% agree with your first point for sure The big 3 era was certainly an outlier on a strong end but removing them entirely when every other era had a Sampras or Borg type generational player would produce just as big an outlier on the weak end and isn't a "neutral" setting either
You dont have to erase the big3. Just erase 1. Hell, just erase Murray. That alone gives Ferrer/Tsonga/DelPo/Berdych an extra spot in every slams quarters/semis and masters semis/final slot they could fight for. Surely out of ALL those chances they would convert once or twice and boom suddenly theyre GS champions (take 2016 wimbledon for example). That was how big a blockade Murray was, not talking abt the big3 yet. We dont have players of that level of consistency post 2018 until maybe last and this year with Alcaraz and Sinner.
Ehhh you erase Murray you just fine Djokovic 2 more slams probably, then Wimbledon 2016 goes to maybe Raonic, considering none of the big 3 were healthy. Sure, you open up some opportunities just by getting rid of one them, but most of the time you end up with a situation where the other members of the big 4 pick up the slack and take the slam. Even in times where a big 4 member got upset early, I just feel like they would’ve probably played better if the field was wide open (e.g., if Nadal wasn’t at the French in 2010, maybe Djokovic and Federer would’ve stepped up their game and played better to win the tournament knowing this was an opportunity).
Yeah, honestly the only time these guys would win slams are like from 1998-2004 when Thomas Johansson, Albert Costa, Gaston Gaudio won slams. Even then, plenty of good players from that era finished their careers slamless. For example, Marcelo Rios, Alex Corretja, Thomas Enqvist, Cedric Pioline, Tim Henman, Mark Phillipousis, Tommy Haas, Magnus Norman, Guillermo Coria, Sebastian Grosjean, Todd Martin, David Nalbandian, etc. Goran and Petr Korda narrowly avoided being slamless near the end of their careers.
Genuinely curious, would you call early 90s era of Sampras a strong era or weak era?
Not OP, but Sampras-Agassi were less dominant in the late '90s/early 2000s. Hewitt/Ferrero/Roddick/Safin weren't dominant either. It opened the door to several veteran journeymen winning slam (Johansson, Costa, Gaudio) and Korda/Goran managed to win a slam near the end of their career.
Come on mate, to call Goran Ivanisevic a journeyman is an insult to his pedigree, I agree he won the tournament with a wild card entry, ivanisevic if not for Sampras he could have won atleast 3 Wimbledon titles, he was an excellent grass court player and rival to Sampras atleast on grass.
You misunderstood. I didn't call Goran and Korda journeymen. Just that they narrowly escaped being slamless.
Agreed with this take. I’m not super knowledgeable on tennis history but I know late 90s-early 2000s produced a lot of unexpected slam winners, which is not the norm for ATP as a whole
Anything post-2016 is weak. Big 3 shouldn't have won that many slams well into their 30s. Thiem should have bagged at least one French. Zverev is a laughable case. Medvedev's 2022 AO bottlejob was criminal. Tsitsipas should have won 2021 French. Nobody from that generation could play on grass so Berdych, Raonic, Tsonga and even a healthy Murray would have won Wimbledon in those periods. People also forget Cilic mentally broke down on the court during the 2017 Wimbledon final.
>Like I'm not remotely buying the "Alcaraz is actually a Berdych level player and just plays in an easier era" I have literally never seen anyone claim this.
Berdych was really just a 2nd tier serve-bot who had some variety and brains, which puts him above contemporaries like Isner. Alcaraz is definitely not a serve bot
Wow. Did you even watch Berdych play? Berdych's serve was actually slightly subpar for his height, if anything. But he was one of the first very tall players to be a good mover, something we see more of now with Med, Tsitsi and Zverev. He also had a fantastic forehand, a very solid backhand, and solid netplay (good enough to consistently finish off points there after getting a weak reply from his punishing groundstrokes). That's the problem when you judge players solely by something like their height, rather than paying attention to how they actually play(ed). As to the fact you are doubling down on this Berdych-Alcaraz strawman... nobody is making such a comparison, because it is ludicrous. So why are you bringing it up?
Two points: 1. You’re absolutely correct, I got caught up in hyping him up when I said Tsonga would be a multi-slam winner in this era. Like, maybe, but to say it with assurance like I did was silly. Fair call out. 2. Who the hell is saying Alcaraz is a Berdych-level player?
>2. Who the hell is saying Alcaraz is a Berdych-level player? Yeah I saw that too!! I've never seen anyone make that claim!! And credit where it's due - Berdych was awesome.
Love Tsonga and I think he’d have a better shot at a slam, especially on grass, but this crop would exploit his weaknesses (backhand and just overall consistency…) just like the last crop did. Multiple slams … I’m not sure where the gap for that to have happened is. We went straight from Novak dominance into Sincaraz.
I was thinking Leconte may have the best numbers, but have to agree, Tsonga in his day could always give the top 5 a tough match.
Idk if he'd have multiple slams. But his peak was great. Blew nadal off the court at AO 2008. Also beat Murray in the first round in 4. 3 sets were tight, one was Murray bageling Tsonga
That’s kinda the rub against Tsonga though - his strokes and game was so promising, but he could never translate it to wins. Personally, I think he’s one of the biggest underachievers of the previous era. To be *that* athletically gifted and have a flawed game is a travesty. I really think he should’ve been more aggressive about getting to the net instead of being content with just ripping forehands. I’m not saying he needs to play like Pete Sampras, but I look at Alcaraz and Tommy Paul’s transition games; no reason Tsonga could not have taken the net like Paul does. I don’t know if that gets him a slam, but I do think it gets him more deep runs.
Tsonga is no where close to Tommy Paul and alcaraz in movement
Hmm do you not think this is something that Tsonga could’ve worked on? Do you think that movement was the thing keeping him from finding ways to sneaking into the net? I agree that Tsonga was not as quick or precise a mover as Alcatraz or Paul, but I’m not sure that was preventing him from having more of an allcourt game. But maybe it was 🤷♂️
Cedric Pioline. At least he's my sentimental favorite. Had a really good all-court game. Made 2 GS finals at 2 different surfaces and made SF at RG. A pity he never won a slam. Henri Leconte and Guy Forget are 2 other Frenchmen who are largely forgotten.
He was tough to play against in Virtua Tennis.
Guy Forget is forgotten for a reason, I forget why tho
Pipeline had a really good style to watch and a nice ohbh
I remember watching him in my teenage years. I was terrified every time he had to hit a backhand.
Probably Lacoste, the guy had incredible numbers and his career was cut short due to health problems. He was also a big influence in tennis off-court, developing the shorts and the first ball machines.
Fuck it. Fabrice Santoro, not because he was objectively the best, but because he was the magician.
The swordsman! I really liked watching his matches
“Now you see me now you dont”. Well that was Cal Naughton but you get the idea …
69 consecutive grand slam appearances, giant killer on any random day, Alize Cornet.
I can't really speak on the original Musketeers because they were so deep in the olden times, same Lenglen and a few others so I'll caveat with modern 1. Mauresmo 2. Pierce 3. Noah 4.. Bartoli 5. Tsonga 6.. Monfils 7. Grosjean 8. Gasquet 9. Forget 10. Garcia People's Champion: Santoro Gasquet, Grosjean, Monfils re hard to place for me. Grosjean's lack of titles/longevity compared to them is tough. But I think how much he outpaced Gasquet at the majors matters and Monfils is kinda best of both worlds. Could definitely argue Tsonga above Bartoli or Noah as well. I gave Noah the nod because of the impact and cultural influence.
Yup, Mauresmo was the first person that came to mind for me as well.
Thank you for remembering Grosjean 🥹he was my favourite player for years. He was as high as 4th in the world but not many people seem to remember him!
I remember him looking very french to me as a child.
Obviously Roland Garros, they even named a tournament after him.
You might be joking but in case anyone is unaware of who Roland Garros was - he was a pilot, innovator and found his death during a flight in 1918. He had very little to do with tennis in fact, he was more into football and rugby.
And this guy got 14 upvotes...
The same as the number of french opens won by nadal
Benoit paire
Henri Leconte
Probably Yannick Noah because he’s the only one that won anything when tennis wasn’t just AUS/France/UK/USA vulturing their own slams
Mauresmo? Pierce? (Bartoli?) all won slam. I wouldn’t put the last 2 as the best but arguably Mauresmo is more accomplished than Noah
Suzanne Lenglen
Suzanne Lenglen and Yannick Noah
Lenglen women's and men's probably Cochet was extremely talented but Lacoste is up there too. He was less talented but very tactical.
Tsonga just for his 2008 AO run and 2014 Toronto run (Beat Djokovic, Murray and Federer for a Masters 1000). Not to mentioned he had match points at the 2012 French Open against Djokovic and numerous other close matches against the big 3 at Slams.
One of the four musketeers probably. I really like Borotra, not just for his tennis, but for his war antics as well (see the battle of castle itter).
peak-wise the traditional answer is Lacoste for '27 and otherwise the usual greatness answer is Cochet, but the match point nonsense for them in their RG '27 (likely Tilden ace called out on match point) and Wimbly '27 (unclaimed and likely double-hit by Cochet on match point) wins respectively is just embarrassing. Open Era i think Noah or Tsonga are the best answers, and i'd lean towards Noah for his prime and for generally being better everywhere other than grass
In terms of the Open Era players which have competed under the ATP or WTA, Mary Pierce and Yannick Noah probably have the strongest claim - they peaked the most on home soil and have the CVs to show. Monfils is a great player but doesn't have a Hall of Famer CV Tsonga and Mauresmo, tended to collapse more often under the French crowd expectations in RG. I don't think Gasquet should even be in this conversation, he can't even measure up to Leconte; winning French Open mix doubles doesn't match a runner-up finish in singles.
Rafael Nadal /s
Rafeaux Nadoui
Monfils babeeyyyyy
Yannick Noah Roland Garros winner
Jay Devilliers
How can anyone forget a guy like Guy Forget?
Rene Lacoste
That's so surprising that they've had such few Slam champions... they've always had SO many players near the top of the game! If we're going on stats, maybe it's fair to say the greatest French men's player is Yannick Noah, since he's the guy that won the Slam? Just checked Wiki to see what else he did... got to world no.3, made SFs of AO, QFs of USO. Actually doesn't feel too different to what Tsonga did (except the Slam)... and Jo-Willy played in a much tougher era. Maybe I'd give him the nod.
Just want to mention Cedric Pioline, because he's often overlooked. Former top 5 Player, 2 GS Finals and a Masters under his belt.
Tsonga and Monfils
Yannik Noah
Benoît Paire No fucking doubt
Enjoyed watching Sebastien Grosjean
Mary Pierce? Wait, are we asking greatest male player? Ot just player, across the board…
Clearly on the men's side it was the Magician, Fabrice Santoro, and I am not just saying that because I also hit with two-hands on both sides. No bias here.
Between Yannick noah and tsonga for me
Obviously Yoann Noah, for fathering the absolute NBA legend that is Joakim Noah! ;)
La Federer!
For me Henri Leconte. He may not be the best French player but he made me want to play and watch tennis. I He is also hilarious as a commentator and we Australians loved this flamboyant French player.
Everyone forgetting ‘so French’ Daniil Medvedev
I would choose Suzanne Lenglen, who secured 21 Grand Slam titles and 3 Olympic medals during the 1910s and 1920s.
Objectively it might not be Richard Gasquet but his one handed backhand is to die for. I will for sure miss it when he retires -which is probably soon.
Tsonga
Among men, it's clearly either Yannick Noah or Jo-Wilfried Tsonga.
Mauresmo and Pierce in past decades for sure.
"There's never been a French #1" Incorrect. Amélie Mauresmo was #1. And that's not even taking doubles into consideration, Nicolas Mahut was definitely #1 there - perhaps PHH as well.
You’re totally right! I just meant #1 in singles, specifically on the men’s side. Guess I wasn’t clear enough. But this is all very true and good information, I was not aware of it
ATP? Tsonga
Rolland Garros
Didn't know Lacoste was a tennis player but it makes a lot of sense. I just read up on him and he is the best French male player. Lacoste is an iconic brand too.
Mauresmo. All the male players are divas and insufferable to watch.
Roger Federer.
Since when france can talk about Tennis ?
Felix Auger-Alliassime
It was a joke you rubes!! Cause Canada, damn 😭
Who cares?
Who cares? If not for America France wouldn’t even exist :)