Hi Tennis Fan, Am not against your opinion coz you are entitled to one. I agree with you (and others) keep insisting that calendar grand slam is an important judge to decide the greatness of a player. But calling Rod Laver the greatest on that basis is nothing short of ridiculous !
US Open till 1975 was played on grass and Laver completed his second slam in 1969. Similarly, Aussie open was grass til 1987. Which means, Laver won only on 2 surfaces (grass & clay) in 1960 and 1969. If that was a case to compare, Federer won on 2 surfaces (grass & hardcourt) in 2004, 06 & 07. Which means he beats Laver on that front too.
And I am also see this comment about Laver having great competition. Thats not true either. Many players were banned to play (prior to open era) and therefore Laver did not necessarily face the toughest of competition always.
So before you people go about mentioning things, it would be nice to see some research and application of thought before concluding on things.
Federer is the AMONG the greatest for many things: career grand slam, 14 slams (& counting), Less than 6 years to do that, 20 straight semis and 19 finals.....
But to call him greatest of all time (GOAT) is difficult coz you cant compare between eras due to many 'ifs' and 'buts'.....
but please spell facts to support your arguments....
I think she has won each of the grand slams atleast 4 times which makes 4 career slams including one golden slam which no other player has achieved. The fact she could not compete with men is not her fault...so if u just go by numbers she is most probably the greatest tennis player ever if u eliminate the gender bias!!
Now ah have bin reading all the posts of here and there are a number of compelling cases made, yes siree bob very compelling. However in the end I really have to conclude that the point/perspective made by TennisFan and Tan are the most convincing. So in conclusion ...Federer is definitely among the greats ... some of the greats being Tilden, Laver, Borg, Mac, Sampras and Federer(to repeat myself in case I piss of the Federer fans completely).
Re: So in Summary..
by tennis fan on Jun 09, 2009 07:29 PM
COOLDIFFUSION, cool one, specially doffing your hat to Federer in the last line in order to not annoy his fans!!!! Federer is a GREAT tennis player but not the GREATEST. Let him or anyone else hols all four titles at the same time and then we shall talk!!!!
Agassi & Federer are the only two men's players to win the Grand Slam on 4 different surfaces as 3 of the 4 tournaments used to be played on grass back when the other four GS winners accomplished their feat. Andre has already endorsed Roger as GREATEST OF ALL TIME as has Sampras & Johhny Mac. NOBODY in the history of the game has played as well on all 4 surfaces...NOBODY! Perhaps Borg was a better clay court player and Pete a grass court player, etc, but there is a consistant GREATNESS from Roger in every venue. Roger is an incredible clay court player, probably in the TOP 10 all time but Nadal happens to be a bit better, however,Rafa is not in Fed's league on the hardcourts and Roger is still better on grass IMO. What is overlooked more than any other asset of his, is Roger's quickness & fluidity on all 4 surfaces, again NOBODY else can make that claim. It is fun to ponder who is the G.O.A.T. in any sport, but if you look at it objectively and in the context of all 4 surfaces, Roger is clearly the best men's tennis player that ever gripped a racket.
Re: Sports
by Tan on Jun 09, 2009 06:45 PM
History, in any form and in this case Sports History is best written by historians not athletes. So while you may take a athletes perspective and history does that ... u don't juodge several eras of tennis based on what athletes have said. You go to more well established publications, journals, sites ( a point I think TennisFan makes as well) to read and determine what the experts have to say. And it is clear what the experts say about Tennis over the last years is that it has had a few great players, no one who can be called the greatest and these great players include Federer, Sampras, Mac, Borg, Laver, Tilden. Most people who have been posting their comments seem to have only watched Tennis and read tennis related articles pertaining to the last 10-15 years i.e the Sampras-Agassi era and the Federer-Nadal era and hence fail to appreciate the greatness of yester-year players such as Laver, Borg and Mac. Finally another point that goes against the case making Federer the greatest is that he dominated between 2003-2007 years when the greats Sampras, Agassi had left and before Nadal had really stamoed his class despite the fact he won the 2005 and 2006 French Opens.
Re: Sports
by tennis fan on Jun 09, 2009 06:32 PM
Well MICHAEL, grass(WIMBLEDON) and hardcourts(US OPEN and AUS OPEN) are not very different from each other; that is why players who excel on the faster surfaces - grass and hardcourts - have been able to win those three Grand Slams in one single year but not the FRENCH OPEN!!!! Please don't go by others' assessments and say that so-and-so has 'certified' Federer as the 'GREATEST'; they also might be making politically correct comments in the face of Federer's French Open win. If Federer is really the 'Greatest', then why has he not been able to hold all four titles in any given calendar year as Budge did in 1938 and Laver did in 1962 and 1969. SORRY, but your assessment is far from objective - you provide just your own opinion, no hard stats - and seems just the assertions of an ardent federer fan, that's all.
Re: Re: Sports
by SREENU RAO on Jun 10, 2009 12:11 PM
Dear Mr. TAN, Why is greatness linked to holding all the titles in a claendar year. You mean to say that a person who has won all three out of four in a calendar year and had to retire hurt because of an injury in the 4th can never become the greatest player of all time. Stupidity.
Re: Sports
by karthick anand on Jun 09, 2009 06:43 PM
ok...ten years from now they might start playing on glass so what?
Consider Rod Laver..he won all 4 slams in a single year and the only male player with a calender grand slam? can anyone repeat that?
Laver won 11 slams even when he was not allowed to compete for 6 straight years between the ages of 24 and 30 - considered the peak for any player..now who would count for that?
Re: Re: Sports
by SREENU RAO on Jun 10, 2009 12:14 PM
Mr. Karthick & Tennis Fan, Plese use brains. Did Laver the quality of opposition i.e. Nadal which Federer has now.
Re: Re: Re: Sports
by tennis fan on Jun 12, 2009 04:42 PM
Mr.SREENU RAO, you are probably aware only of Nadal and Federer because you are, most likely, very young and also probably not interested in the game of tennis to know much about players from the past.
One cannot blame you for not knowing the quality of players - Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Emerson, Krishnan - in the 1960's.
Re: Re: Sports
by tennis fan on Jun 09, 2009 07:19 PM
Karthick, very right. Let any of these guys first win all four in the same year or even all four one after another - say W and US O in 2009 followed by the next two in 2010 - then we can talk about greatness in comparison to Laver let alone what Laver might have ended up with if he had competed in the 1963-67 period. If he had competed - of course, this is pure speculation - he might have ended with one or two more Calendar Year Grand Slams and 20 grand slam titles!!!!
Its a big irony that there is a poll asking if Federer is the greatest of all time when he is only World No: 2 in the current era!!
There is only player in his same generation that Federer has failed to beat time and again so how can he be the greatest of all time?
He even lost one match to Sampras last year if you remember. Sure he has the most beautiful shots but does that make him the greatest? Don't facts and results matter?
Re: Definitely not the greatest
by SREENU RAO on Jun 10, 2009 12:18 PM
Mr. Anand, Do you mean to say that Laver was never beaten. Did you forget that Federer beat Nadal last month at Madrid on Clay and previously at Rome where Nadal is considered invincible. Use your brain
Re: Definitely not the greatest
by Bala on Jun 09, 2009 06:09 PM
Who cares.. He has Won almost 14 in total and took French too. He crushed the A guy who defeated Nadal..
Re: Re: Definitely not the greatest
by karthick anand on Jun 09, 2009 06:23 PM
Nadal is just 23 now..so if nothing hampers his career and if he ends up winning more slams than Federer then does that make him the greatest? Is there just one metric to determine the greatest ever?
Re: Re: Re: Definitely not the greatest
by easwaran easwaran on Jun 09, 2009 10:00 PM
The notable part of your statement is "if nothing hampers" well a player to be great should not only play well but also conduct himself very well for occassions which both Pistol and Fedex have done for many years hence they are the greatest players to grace the game and Fedex goes a step ahead by winning the french where as Pistol had not been in the finals there that sums up everything buddy.
Re: Re: Re: Definitely not the greatest
by SREENU RAO on Jun 10, 2009 12:20 PM
Now you are talking some sense with your brain. Winning more grandslams doesnt mean the greatest and also Nadal has lot of knee pains at 23 only which federer didnt have.
Re: Re: Re: Definitely not the greatest
by narmada thampan on Jun 09, 2009 11:11 PM
rafas style of play could be more brutal on his body… rafa’s domination is not over by any means, but it won’t be nearly as long as rogers....thats for sure.. nadal’s playing career will be significantly shorter because of his style of play.
Re: Definitely not the greatest
by VINAYAK KAPALESHWARI on Jun 12, 2009 04:19 PM
I am totally agree with you. As there was no Nadal in the French Open final. Roger has to defeat Nadal in the French Open Final, as Nadal has defeated him in the last year at Wimbeldon. And one thing is sure that suppose if Nadal wins more Grand Slam Titles than of Roger at his career end then Obviously Nadal is the greatest player all times. And one thing we do not forget that Only Nadal is the player who challenges Roger. When Sampras was playing there was some big players like Aggasi, Goran, etc, And one thing we have to remember that Nadal beats Roger in last 3 finals and one semi final. So my point of view Roger is the best player and not the great of all times.
Re: Definitely not the greatest
by narmada thampan on Jun 09, 2009 05:53 PM
If you think Rafa has a shot at GOAT then talk it out in like maybe 10 slams from now, IF his body holds up. I for one, although I firmly beleive Rafa is great for the game, is prone to injury already at what, 22? Let’s wait until he is Fed’s age and accomplishments and IF he lasts and then will talk....
Re: Re: Definitely not the greatest
by tennis fan on Jun 09, 2009 06:14 PM
no NARMADA, that's NOT it!! Do give weight to what other accomplished players might have said but arrive at your own independent conclusion by referring widely to resources on the net as also your own understanding of the game and its history. To merely quote Sampras and McEnroe is to take the easy and lazy way out.
Re: Re: Re: Definitely not the greatest
by narmada thampan on Jun 09, 2009 06:21 PM
HEllo Tennis fan, dont misquote....and lemme ask //that's NOT it!! // ?? what was that?? be specific.. To call roger the greatest who ever played up to the present would be a statement of fact, no ifs ands or buts about that....
Re: Re: Re: Re: Definitely not the greatest
by tennis fan on Jun 09, 2009 07:09 PM
why no ifs and buts about it?? you seem like an autocrat wedded to her opinion and not to facts!! Federer as 'GREATEST' is hardly a forgone conclusion as you seem to imply. In fact it makes me wonder if you have any detailed historical appreciation of past players. HAS FEDERER WON ALL GRAND SLAM TITLES IN ONE SINGLE YEAR - AS DID BUDGE IN 1938 AND LAVER IN 1962 AND 1969?? A so-called 'career slam' is a very poor substitute for a genuine CALENDAR YEAR GRAND SLAM - winning all four titles in the same year. I would even go along with holding all four at the same time - winning all four one after another. Let's see if Federer, Nadal or anyone else can do that.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Definitely not the greatest
by narmada thampan on Jun 09, 2009 11:02 PM
Every player has done at least one unique thing that NO OTHER player has done.It would be impossible for someone to achieve everything. Even if some guy comes around and wins 30 Slams or something, there will still be things that he might not have achieved that other players have
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Definitely not the greatest
by SREENU RAO on Jun 10, 2009 12:23 PM
Dear Tennis Fan Why is greatness linked to holding all the titles in a claendar year. You mean to say that a person who has won all three out of four in a calendar year and had to retire hurt because of an injury in the 4th can never become the greatest player of all time. Stupidity.
Re: Re: Definitely not the greatest
by narmada thampan on Jun 09, 2009 05:59 PM
McEnroe and even Sampras himself consider Federer the greatest ever. Why? Because they have played their games and reached the peaks of their respective careers and know what it takes to be a champion. They had their successes and have an honest assessment of their careers. Then they see this guy Federer play, witnessed his accomplishments and came to the conclusion that Federer has done better than they, other previous and current players have. Hence, their unselfish proclamation that Federer is the greatest who ever played...Thats it!
Re: Re: Re: Definitely not the greatest
by narmada thampan on Jun 09, 2009 06:15 PM
Pete Sampras’ greatest achievement was setting the all-time Grand Slam title mark at fourteen. Andre Agassi’s greatest achievement was winning the career Grand Slam. Roger Federer has now equaled the greatest achievements of the top two players from the prior generation.Anything Fed wins NOW is just gravy. The pressure is off him.He can swing freely and let his natural talent flow through like never before. It’s very likely he will end the year #1 and again hold 3 of the 4 major titles.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Definitely not the greatest
by tennis fan on Jun 09, 2009 07:00 PM
NARMADA, Sampras's 'greatest achievement' could not include even one French Open title !! And the 'career grand slam' was brought in as a concept when no modern player was dominant enough to hold all four titles in the same calendar year. In fact, the only year that Agassi held a maximum of two of his eight grand slam titles was 1999. In fact, Mats Wilander held three of the four in 1988!! I hope that you do not ask 'Mats who...?'!!!! As it seemed unlikely that any recent player was going to be so good as to win all four in the same year, the 'career slam' was introduced. Can Federer ever win all four titles in the same year? I don't think so, specially if he is up against Nadal in any grand slam Final as the latter has a psychological edge over Federer and Del Potro is coming along very quickly from behind!!!!
Re: Re: Definitely not the greatest
by tennis fan on Jun 09, 2009 06:07 PM
ONLY those who are very young and/or ignorant of tennis history will keep this discussion limited to NADAL vs FEDERER for they just do not have any idea of what other great players have achieved and how beautifully and intensely they played, each in his own unique way. I would watch Borg on tv playing at Wimbledon and can surely say that no current player including Federer comes close to the intensity and focus he epitomised; that was also the time when Nastase, Connors, Vilas, McEnroe were playing in their prime. Federer has not had anything close to that sort of competition and he still remains a question mark playing Nadal in any Grand Slam FINAL.
Re: Re: Re: Definitely not the greatest
by narmada thampan on Jun 09, 2009 11:36 PM
Emerson, Laver, Borg, McEnroe, lendl, Connors, Edberg, Becker Pete, agassii….all have their own unique achievements and records. they all were greatest of their era, with whatever surface, racquet technology and opponents that were there at their disposal…Cy Young has over 500 wins as a pitcher in baseball, but his last game was in the early 1900's. And nobody can come close to 500 wins in today's game. Coz today's game is different… Same thing with Borg. Remember, Borg did try to come back several years after his retirement, with the wooden racquet. It was a failure beyond imagination……
Re: Re: Definitely not the greatest
by karthick anand on Jun 09, 2009 06:04 PM
Exactly the point I am driving here. I am not arguing that Nadal is greatest but my point is the tag 'Greatest of all time' is just plain wrong media hype and a bit premature given that both Federer and Nadal have many playing years left.
Re: Re: Re: Definitely not the greatest
by karthick anand on Jun 09, 2009 06:07 PM
the reply was for the previous post and not this..however i think the message holds good for all arguments
Re: Definitely not the greatest
by uncle sam on Jun 09, 2009 05:53 PM
the greatest of yesteryears Laver also lost to emerson on quite a few occasions. so does that make emerson as the greatest player and not laver. by that logic leander paes, krajicek and stich are greater than sampras as they have a better head to head record.
The tennis historian Raymond Lee did a statistical analysis account of the question of the greatest-ever tennis player, counting tournament wins totals and percentages of career match wins and wins in a 5 year period. His alltime list ranks Laver ahead of Borg and Tilden (tie), Federer, Gonzales, Rosewall, Budge, Lendl, Connors, Sampras in the top ten. For some perspective look up TENNIS on WIKIPEDIA and other sources on the net.
Re: JUST FOR SOME PERPECTIVE INSTEAD OF EACH SHOUTING OWN PREFERE
by narmada thampan on Jun 09, 2009 11:05 PM
//"Do give weight to what others might have said but arrive at your own independent conclusion by referring widely to resources on the net as also your own understanding of the game and its history. To merely quote Ray Lee is to take the easy and lazy way out"!!!!
Re: JUST FOR SOME PERPECTIVE INSTEAD OF EACH SHOUTING OWN PREFERE
by Tan on Jun 09, 2009 05:46 PM
This is good stuff, factual and I can go with this. I am surprised that Mac is not on the list and so I went to Wikipedia and did a search on Pancho Gonzales and this is what was said: "For about 35 years from around 1920 to 1955, Bill Tilden was generally considered the greatest player of all time. From the mid-1950s to about 1970, many people thought that Gonzales had claimed that title. Since then, champions of the Open era such as Rod Laver, Björn Borg, Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, Pete Sampras, and Roger Federer have been considered by many of their contemporaries to be greater players than either Tilden or Gonzales." So all you Federer fans hold off ... great but not THE greatest.
Re: JUST FOR SOME PERPECTIVE INSTEAD OF EACH SHOUTING OWN PREFERE
by tennis fan on Jun 09, 2009 05:47 PM
AND it is very poor form for the REDIFF writer of this aricle to refer to NADAL as the 'freak from Mallorca'. No TRUE lover of sporting excellence and achievement will ever make fun of sporting icons whether it be Nadal, Federer or anyone else. VERY POOR FORM, Mr.Anonymous Writer; it does not show you as a sporting person and a gentleman at all.
Re: Tennis greatest
by Tan on Jun 09, 2009 04:45 PM
Listen you little toad, u have been croaking about Federer, Nadal without any tennis related evidence. Why dont you watch a few matches, read up on the history before u open your mouth again.
Re: Re: Tennis greatest
by Anurag Rathore on Jun 09, 2009 04:49 PM
Listen you little fellow. Why didn't watch the matches? Just go and wait before the TV to catch the highlights atleast. Don't ever visit blogs
Look at humility of nadal.The statement after losing in 4th round.Moreover if Nadal is there then federer victories will be counted unless tennis become like Robot.in other word boring.Look at all the fedex fans how happy they are on hearing the news of nadal getting injured so isnt that show fear of Nadal or selfishness.Dont worry Nadal is alright and coming to play grass court.HE is careful palnner and if he doesnt comes out then he is then also ready to loose no.1 spot but taking rest to win US Open.This year nadal will complete the slam.
Re: to fans of fedex
by Bala on Jun 09, 2009 04:44 PM
Pressure is off from Feddie.. HE will ensure that Nadal is not going to win a single grand Slam here after.. IF not federrer, may be Soderling.. Murray.. may some young blood.
Re: Re: to fans of fedex
by bitu singh on Jun 09, 2009 05:07 PM
you admitted that its nadal era.How you all feared of him.see nadal played all the epic final and won.Look at his nerves.Australian open Semin final finest match...Nadal v vedasco,Wimbleton 2008 Nadal v Fedex.who is got steel nerves.
Re: Re: Re: to fans of fedex
by PUNEESH on Jun 09, 2009 07:38 PM
you said it right......although i am a neutral, i wanted federer to win french open and make history.....but i also think that until federer beats nadal in a grand slam final, especially after his recent soul shattering defeats against nadal, he will always be considered vulnerable against nadal in big finals....
Look pete sampras is not a god that his statement matter to tell some one is greatest.Agassi said that Nadal wil win four slams.Nadal lost to win the US Open.Let see if he become youngest to win all grand slams.Fedex cant comepete against nadal its sure.Nadal remain No.2 for many years and then brokeFedex No.1 status.Nadal will break all records for sure.Lefty in all the feild creates history.
Re: greatest or not
by Bala on Jun 09, 2009 04:46 PM
Before Frech open The gap was 4000 points Between Nadal and Feddir.. Now its just around 2000. I am sure.. I bet after Wimbledone Feddie will be the Number one.
Re: Re: greatest or not
by easwaran easwaran on Jun 09, 2009 10:12 PM
Last august Fedex(greatest tennis player) lost his number one ranking to Rafa(great clay courter), just wait for this august you would see another round of number 1 for a longer reign where Fedex will surpass Pistol even in that by end of April 2010. Then he will prove again he is the greatest.
Federer has proved his greatness by winning all 4 slams and 14 grand slams but to call him the greatest is really stretching it. 10 of his wins came when there was no serious competition around. He started winning in 2003 when 2 of dominant players of the 90's Sampras and Agassi were reaching the end of their careers. Serious competition came his way in the form of Nadal in 2007 even though Nadal was Rogering him at the French from 2005...since then Federer much talked about calm, court coverage, blah blah have all been shaken up pretty badly. Luck is the only word to describe his French Open win.
Re: Federer great but not the greatest
by Bala on Jun 09, 2009 05:00 PM
Buddy.. Players around 2003, 2004 were in no match to Federrer. He had raised the bar to a height such that no body were near to him. That made everybody to feel that Fedderer had no competition. It took some time for others ( even Nadal) to catch up fedderer.
Re: Federer great but not the greatest
by easwaran easwaran on Jun 09, 2009 10:24 PM
I believe only Mark Philiphousis & Robin Soderling were not a big name but he won all the other 12 against quality opponents Let me give you the losers
2003 WIM Mark Philipousis
2004 Aus Marat Safin 2004 WIM Andy Roddick 2004 US Lleyton Hewitt
2005 WIM Andy Roddick 2005 US Andre Agassi
2006 AUS Marcos Baghdatis (hard serving cypriot) 2006 WIM Rafael Nadal 2006 US Andy Roddick
2007 Aus Fernando Gonzalez (hard serving chilean who was in top 10) 2007 WIM Rafael Nadal 2007 US DJoker (Promising youngster in top 5)
2008 US Andy Murray (Best ever English player then number 4)
Re: Federer great but not the greatest
by Tan on Jun 09, 2009 03:20 PM
If you were a student of tennis history you would not be debating if he was the greatest. He definitely is not the greatest, when you have players like Rod Laver and Bjorn Borg the discussion should end fairly soon after it starts because these players acheived their victories against tremendous competition. Who did Federer win against ... no one of any consequence really after his 2003 wimbeledon victory ... then when Nadal came along, this guys game comes apart.
Re: Re: Federer great but not the greatest
by uncle sam on Jun 09, 2009 04:12 PM
u r missing the point dude. its not federer's fault if others were not able to play at his level. in fact federer is in a different league altogether. he has raised his game a few notches over a period of time that other players are still trying to catch up and they are not bad players at all. i am sure players like djoker, murray, roddick, safin, verdasco, soderling, gonzalez are very good and would have beaten the best of yesteryears if they had played them in their prime. i know the playing conditions in those days, the equipment used etc were different as compared to today's conditions, equipment. but then we are talking abt 2 different eras. if you purely look at skillsets, agility, mobility, athletism, the no of unforced errors the players used to make then and now and other variables players of today's era would have easily beaten the borgs, mcenroes and lavers of the world. hence unarguably federer is the greatest player to have played this game untill of course nadal does a federer again by winning the US and win more slams than fedex after he retire as nadal is 5 yrs younger to him.
Re: Re: Re: Federer great but not the greatest
by Tan on Jun 09, 2009 04:27 PM
Really, you have Soderling(ranked 23rd, nobody has heard of this guy prior to the French), Verdasco(again not heard off till this years Australian), Murray, Gonzalez(never won a slam), Djojer, Roddick(one each) and put them in the same league as Laver, Borg, McEnroe?? Ha Ha ... you've lost your marbles. Borg started winning his slams at age 19, McEnroe at 20 ... you know when Federer started winning ... age 22. You know why so late ? because he could not win against good players like Sampras and Agassi, not even against a Hewitt at his peak ... it is only when the field had cleared that this guy started winning and then lossing when real competition(Nadal) arrived.
