Federer just won his 10th Tennis Grand Slam title by defeating Gonzalez in straight sets at the 2007 Australian Open. He is only 4 shy of the all time record by Pete Sampras which is 14. Roger still has many more years ahead of him and he may break this record in the next two years.
Is he the greatest tennis player ever? Click http://poll.pollcode.com/B1U to vote.
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
“Is Federer the best ever?”
I don’t think so. Not because he is not great, but because such type of performance can’t be compared across times. Pretty much the same as in chess. There is no way to tell whether Capablanca was better, worse or the same as Fischer or Kasparov. It is impossible to tell. Not even from there records compared, because that depends on the others who the competition were/is at any given time.
Federer, no question an outstanding tennis player, but slightly lucky for not having a similarly outstanding “somebody else” right now. I love his style, his elegant play making it look easy, so it is not that I have anything against Federer. I just don’t believe that the “best ever” is a possible statement in any activity which can’t be objectively measured (such as time in 100 meter dash. Somebody who sets a world record, quite obviously “the best ever”).
Gabor
I don’t think I could have expressed that better myself. Well said.
Tennis is much more competitive now than it was in the past. Look at how the Williams sisters changed the nature of women’s tennis. Much as I like Martina Hingis, she is not in the same league as the top 5 players. And I think Martina is playing better now than she did in the past.
It’s the same with men’s tennis. The level of competition is higher. If you ask McEnroe about the level of competition being higher now than in the past, he will agree. When Sampras was dominant, McEnroe was very complementary towards him.
And now McEnroe is very complementary towards Federer. For Federer to be dominant at this level of tennis is amazing.
Is he the best? This question cannot be answered yet. But he is an amazing player and I enjoy watching him.
Steffi????
Steffi Graf???
That’s a sick joke right??
GUNTHER PARCHE made history and the German court system will live in infamy
Yes Federer is probably the best, but only if he wins the French.
Roger needs to win the French Open to really validate his argument but he’s clearly the best right now and a true gentleman both on and off the court.
You can discuss about who is the best ever (for now, until Federer wins some more Grand Slam Tournaments and breaks all records) but you can’t discuss the fact that Federer is bringing the best tennis ever.
Agreed, must win the French Open to be the greatest.
I do wish however that the tennis seasons were not dominated so much by hardcourt and clay tournaments.
I do wish there were more grass tournaments.
Gabor, you can’t even say best ever in the 100 meter dash. 9.6 seconds today may not be as good as 10.6 seconds some years before – training, technique, diet, etc. all come into it.
Federer is on the fast track to be
the best ever. Only Sampras with
14 majors and Laver with 11 majors
(remember Laver went 6 years in his
prime without playing a Grand Slam
tournament) might have more im-
pressive resumes. When Federer
accomplishes the following, maybe
in 2007, he should then receive
strong consideration for best
ever: 1) Win the French Open.
2) Win all 4 Slams in a calendar
year.
I personally believe that we are
very fortunate to be seeing per-
haps the greatest individual
players ever, Federer and Tiger
Woods, at the same time in history.
Tennis is much more competitive now than it was in the past.
In general I agree, but if the debate is between Sampras and Federer I’m not sure.
It seems to me that tennis was more competitive at the top in Sampras’s day. Why? Well, most tennis experts tend to put Agassi and Sampras (along with Federer of course) amongst the top 5 or so players of all time. In addition to Agassi, Lendl and Courier and other remarkable players overlap with Sampras.
OTOH, who does Federer have to compete against? Nadal is amazing on clay, but he isn’t that spectacular anywhere else (not on the level of Agassi or Lendl or the like). Roddick is great, but not an all time great. The worlds 3rd through 6th players right now haven’t won much and won’t go down in history.
So bottom line is Federer doesn’t have the kind of competition amongst the very top that Sampras had. That doesn’t mean he isn’t better, but it makes it hard to tell.
I wonder, whether this debate is still on.
My opinion is, that Federer is the most COMPLETE player of all-time. He has everything: good serve with such variety, killer forehand (can hit all angles), reliable backhand (top-spin, slice everything), he can play serve and volley, as he has the perfect touch at the net, he is wonderful in defending and attacking, his mental strength is obvious. His concentration is perfect. Surface does not bother him, no injuries and so on, and so on.
Having said that, I agree that to underline all the above he has to win the French. I do not think that the Slam is a must, but if he wins French…
However, the level of competition IS high. I think Federer showed that he is better than Agassi as he beat him in the US Open twice in front of a hostile crowd. Also, in their only meeting he beat Pete Sampras in Wimbledon! Also do not forget, that Federer is since three years the best and that is the reason that you think there is no real competition. He makes them look ordinary. Beforehand, you were not so sure that he will beat Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Agassi and co. What is more, you cannot tell now, what will happen in a few month time. Maybe another talent will come, Murray, Djokovic, et al they are all around the corner, wishing to push away Federer from the thrown. And there are the sensation obsessed mass who want to see the hero “die”.
OK. What is true, that if we would have an injury-free and mentally stable Safin, then he would be more than capable of beating Roger as he did two years ago in Melbourne, but there is that little if.
adam
I think Roger Federer has a great
chance to be considered the best
ever when his career is over. As
for now, no man has come too
close to matching Rod Laver’s
accomplishments: two Grand Slams
(1962 & 1969), 11 overall major
championships (didn’t play any
majors from 1963-1968). Bjorn
Borg was also awesome, with the
unlikely accomplishment of 6 French and 5 Wimbledon crowns. He retired too early or he probably would have captured as many majors as Sampras.
Roger, like Tiger, is only playing
against an opponent called History
at this point.