Federer - really the greatest ever?

by **Saarbrigga** » Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:18

Hey guys,

please wrote your opinion and vote.

Who says Federer is already the greatest male tennis player of all time?
-> McEnroe, Sampras, Agassi, Borg, Roddick, Söderling, Nadal and others

Who still says no?
-> Laver, Brad Gilbert, Wilander, Nastase and others

Is Federer really on par with Jordan, Gretzky, Ali, Pelé, Merckx and the rest of them?

My opinion:

The greatest on grass -> Pistol Pete (stands alone)

The greatest on clay -> Borg, Nadal, Guga (all 3 almost equal)

The greatest on hard -> Federer, Lendl, Agassi, Sampras

The greatest Tennis player (overall) -> Federer

by **Samael** » Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:25

Why do we have to get through this again??? Comparing Federer with Borg, Nastase, Lendl, Sampras, Agassi, is like comparing Pele, Di Stefano, Gullit, Maradona with Cristiano Ronaldo or Messi or like comparing Aristotle, Plato with Nietzsche, Levi Strauss or Peirce...

Edit: Well, Aristotle shouldn't have been named here, 'cos he's the greatest of them all and everybody must be compared with him. :wink:

by **fedfan** » Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:28

Yes, we are never all going to agree on this. He is one of the greatest, that is enough.

by **Pipcycling** » Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:39

he's the gratest. no dubt... after wimbledon he will become n.1 for the second time and he improve at the world he's the best (and also.. players like sampras and laver never had a "nadal" in their years of play)

by **Yippie-Caiay** » Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:47

Dragos wrote:Why do we have to get through this again??? Comparing Federer with Borg, Nastase, Lendl, Sampras, Agassi, is like comparing Pele, Di Stefano, Gullit, Maradona with Cristiano Ronaldo or Messi or like comparing Aristotle, Plato with Nietzsche, Levi Strauss or Peirce... Edit: Well, Aristotle shouldn't have been named here, 'cos he's the greatest of them all and everybody must be compared with him.

that is ridiculous, diego is the best there is and the best there will be

by **Samael** » Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:52

I didn't write the contrary. :wink:

by **Q. Reese** » Fri, 19 Jun 2009 22:43

I will say that Federer reach the heights of Michael Jordan only if he wins grand slam #15.

He is the best court player of all time (he can play on hard, clay, grass, hard, carpet, ice, oil . . .).

by **venom400** » Fri, 19 Jun 2009 22:55

Yes , you messure greatness by many different ways, but my take :

His conduct in the court : very polite , hardly ever screams or trows his racquet , very sportmanship like , he does this sometimes but he is human.

Consistancy : he is very consistant on goodness , he consistantly gets to the finals on all surfaces .

Longetivity : he is 28 and still running around and hitting with them young bucks and doesn't show signs of sliding on the ranks , if anything he is about to take his number 1 again.

Constant record breaking : he is constantly breaking new records and has broken more records than many people could ever dream of , in an era were tennis is faster , and more consitant .

You cannot compare him to the old timers because tennis backthen wasn't as competitive as it is now , look at some of the old videos with Mcroe , bjan , Laver and you see how tennis was back then .

Also he is one of the most elegant players ever.

Go Roger!

by **Samael** » Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:00

But if Ashe, Borgh, Mac, jimmy C. had the "material" and teh conditions Fed and Nadal habve today, i think that... Well, you know what... And bear in mind that Ashe didn't play three years in the GS's. I think he would have won more than 15 Gs.

by **Yippie-Caiay** » Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:45

stop comparing eras, or worse, really think that old eras are even competitive with nowadays...tennis was about passing the ball to the other side, and volleying...now, a new tennis style has born, where players hit harder than ever, and its not just because of new racquets or whatever, tennis is just played in a different way than before...and btw, with the way tennis is played now, anyone from the old eras would get crashed by modern players...

by **Rob ITST** » Sat, 20 Jun 2009 02:30

Pipcycling wrote:and also.. players like sampras and laver never had a "nadal" in their years of play

Sampras had Agassi, another one of the all time greats. The difference is that Sampras dominated their rivalry, while Nadal has dominated Fed.

by **Mike Rotchtickles** » Sat, 20 Jun 2009 06:33

Rob ITST wrote:Sampras had Agassi, another one of the all time greats. The difference is that Sampras dominated their rivalry, while Nadal has dominated Fed.

Nope, I disagree.
You say Nadal has dominated Fed, but you have to look more closely at their h2h record than just the pure numbers.
A large chunk of their matches have been played on clay where clearly Nadal is considered by many to be the greatest ever on that surface. Fed has always been good enough to consistently reach semis or finals on clay and therefore having to play Nadal in those tourneys. If he had lost in earlier rounds to other players, he would not have a losing record against Rafa. On the other hand, Rafa has never seemed to be fit enough injury wise or in-form when it comes to the US Open, so in a tourney and on a surface which Fed has dominated, Rafas head to head with Federer has not been harmed the same way that Fed's has on clay.

Anyway, for me, Federer is the G.O.A.T, no question. If you compare him to a guy like Sampras, Federer has the edge. He is an all court all surface player, whereas Pete although also one of the greats, could never do well in the major on a surface like clay. One semi at RG in the whole of his career is the best Pete could do.

by **EquitiesindallasBANNED** » Sat, 20 Jun 2009 07:27

You have to be careful to call Fed the GOAT.

While he has won all four, Pete too could have won the French in '96 had he not gotten a stomach virus. Don't forget, he lost in the semis but because he was ill

by **Mike Rotchtickles** » Sat, 20 Jun 2009 07:37

Yeah well was that the only year he had a chance at winning the FO?
What about the other three times he made the quarters but couldn't go on? Was he feeling under the weather those times also?

by **Rob ITST** » Sat, 20 Jun 2009 08:11

Sampras was definitely not as good on clay as Federer, no question. But imo, he also had more clay court specialists to deal with, which are pretty much non-existent today. I remember Laver comparing himself to Sampras in terms of success on clay. He said that in his day he had about 5 clay court guys to worry about, whereas Sampras had about 50.

Today everyone is an all surface player, but that wasn't the case 10 years ago - remember all the Spaniards who didn't even play Wimbledon? They claimed it was because Wimbledon didn't seed according to rankings - but I think anyone who believed he could win Wimbledon would have played, no matter what they were going to be seeded.

Federer - really the greatest ever?

Federer - the greatest ever?

Federer - really the greatest ever?

unfair

Who is online