G.O.A.T Status

[jayl0ve]

I see some pretty carefully constructed arguments, but really I don't have one explaining my choice. I find it hard to decide between Federer, McEnroe, and Sampras but my gut tells me Sampras is the best ever.

[Cro Morgan]

I see some pretty carefully constructed arguments, but really I don't have one explaining my choice. I find it hard to decide between Federer, McEnroe, and Sampras but my gut tells me Sampras is the best ever.

You're close. The best player of all-time is Bjorn Borg.

Good read ...

Is Roger Federer the Best Player of All Time?
Written by Saspcruz

This question is posed every time I watch a tennis match on TV involving Roger Federer and some pundits are willing to award this title of best player of all time to Federer.

We can all understand that the press will have to be positive and cater to the ATP to get their passes and satisfy their employers, but with this kind of comments and write ups they do a great disservice to their audiences and the sport of tennis, because they are not taking into account past past performances from players such as; Rod Laver, Jimmy Connors, Björn Borg, Ivan Lendl, Pete Sampras and totally ignoring history.

Recently at the Australian Open final press conference, Roger Federer admitted the genius tag sits comfortably with him now;

"I mean, look, I guess I'm the best tennis player in the world," Federer said when asked how he reacts to the word genius being used to describe him and his sublime game.

"You can call me a genius because I'm outplaying many of my opponents, kind of maybe playing a bit different, you know, winning when I'm not playing my best. All of that maybe means a little bit of that. So it's nice."

Well what happened to humbleness in victory and in sports? That is another question for another article. The aim of this article is to put the question "Is Roger Federer the best player of all time?" to rest. I could argue that any expert in the world; TV commentators, coaches, and others, would easily agree that, in tennis the younger you are, the harder it is to win against older opponents. Also younger players who have won major Grand Slam tournaments in any era, were true prodigies and perhaps since the word is so loosely applied these days you can call them even geniuses, if you will.

Following such guideline, and then looking at the record versus age the best player of all time is:

Björn Borg (SWE) Birthdate: 6-Jun-56

Between the ages of 17 and 25 years and 4 months old Björn Borg won (61) Singles Career Titles!

Roger Federer between the ages of 17 and 25 years and 4 months old won (45) Singles Career Titles, 16 less titles then Borg won!

Borg, won 6 Major Grand Slam titles at Roland Garros on clay 5 of them consecutive and 5 consecutive titles at Wimbledon on grass.

Roger Federer has won 0 Roland Garros and 5 Wimbledons, 3 Australian Opens, 4 US Opens.

Borg at 17 years old was finalist in 4 ATP events 1973--Buenos Aires, Monte Carlo, San Francisco, Stockholm!

Roger Federer at 17 years old in 1998- reached Toulouse quarter finals.

Rod Laver (AUS) Birthdate: 9-Aug-38

At 24 to 25 years old Rod Laver in 1962 won all four of tennis' Grand Slam singles titles in the same year the Australian Open - French Open - Wimbledon - US Open. At the end of 1962 to 1968 when Rod Laver was at his prime, he was forbidden to play any Grand Slam tournaments because he turned professional.

Rod Laver is the only player in tennis history to have won twice All four of tennis' Grand Slam singles titles in the same year (Australian Open - French Open - Wimbledon - US Open) —first as an amateur in 1962, and then again as a professional in 1969.

Roger Federer (SUI) Birthdate: 8-Aug-81

Roger for example at age 25 years has not once won all 4 Grand Slams titles in a single calendar year!

Rod Laver has won (39) professional Singles Career Titles starting at age 30 years old (1968)!

If the press can call what Roger Federer is doing today "genius", I do not know what they would have called Rod Laver winning all 4 Grand Slam titles Australian Open - French Open - Wimbledon - US Open in a single year at age 31 years old!

Anyway, for me and I hope for you too, with all my respect, the question and speculation of who is or who was the best player of all time is answered. Until someone younger then Bjorn Borg achieves a better record, Borg is the best player of all times! This does not mean that I vouch for Borg's tennis game, which I did not like at all, but his record for a young athlete and for any athlete of any age is absolutely awesome and unrivaled by his peers or any one player of our times!

Was Borg a genius? No, he was just an excellent tennis player!

[Q. Reese]

On the spot there. Good stuff.

[Sherlock 117]

Those 2000 points are in the Entry rank, and aren't guarenteed at the end of the year; he must defend them to keep them. If he doesn't do as well for the remainder of the year as he did last year, and Nadal does better, then he will lose that lead. The Entry rank is nothing more than the Race rank plus the Masters Cup. Then they multiply everything times 5, for some weird reason.

The entry points are multiplied by 5 to include Futures and smaller Challenger events. These tournaments need a finer differentiation between point values, otherwise every player in a futures tournament would recieve 1, 2, or 3 points. When you get down past the top 300 or 400, these players all have less than 100 entry ranking points, so they can still be differentiated. With a smaller separation between point values, it is harder to make a difference between who deserves tournament seeds and who does not.

[Johnnn Boyyy]

Bjorn isn't the best. im sorry, i mean Nadal could easily do what he did if Federer wasn't playing Wimbledon, Nadal has won alot of tourneys, and holds the longest winning streak on clay, if Federer wasn't so great, then Nadal would be producing Bjorns kind of career stats. Federer is a more complete player on all surfaces. It kinda makes it obvious he isn't the greatest when even Bjorn said Fed was the best, as has MacEnroe, so has Agassi, Rod Laver, and almost ever past tennis player besides Sampras. Sampras has probably the biggest ego in tennis history though. He always believed he was the greatest, and he has alot of things to back it up, but i just feel Federer has surpassed him these last couple of years with his domination of the game.

[rikardo12_lpSoldier]

RF .

[oDEVLISHo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0vsJEKIbus

its Roger!

[SundanceKid]

cro morgan:

comparing any careers just between the ages 17 and 25 isn't fair at all.
it's like holding a pistol on somebody's chest telling him, now you are 17, so you have to play successfully from now on.

you know the deployment of every player could be quite different. many players need a highlight first before they make their breakthrough.
federer's was of course wimbledon 2003. so actually his career has began there. so he has won 12 grand slam titles in only 4 (5) years. that is the reason for the most insiders to call him the supposed best player ever. maybe they think after 4 years again, he would have 20 or so.
it's really difficult, so i don't wanna make a decision here.

to the clay problem:

if you had watch tennis in the 60's, you hadn't seen many differences between hardcourt and clay tennis. so the surface wasn't that important.
if you watch clay tennis today, it's a completly different style.....it's a different world. so it's more difficult to become an allrounder, who plays well on all surfaces.
ok...allrounder is one thing...but the best of the best on all surfaces???? it's not enough today, to be just a allrounder. for example davydenko is maybe one the best allrounders today.....but nobody notices him. why? simple. he hasn't won any grand slam yet. on every surface there is one player who is still better at least. nadal on clay, federer on grass and hardcourt for example.

i hope you understand what i mean. you cannot become easily the best of the best on all surfaces today. on clay you have to fight against the spanish disposition (for federer mostly nadal). on the other side the spanish have to improve on faster surfaces. even nadal hasn't won any hardcourt grand slam yet.
so every player today has at least one surface, where he isn't the best.
and conforming your style to that surface takes time. i mean federer still is an excellent clay player. only nadal is a bit better.
same the other way round on grass.

in the 60's federer could have played his normal style on clay. just coz tennis wasn't so intensiv. so laver hadn't change his style a lot and played same on all surfaces.


but nevertheless rod laver is a legend, of course, no doubt who i am, if i would be in doubt of that??

so, why not saying, laver, borg, connors, sampras and federer are giants, and we are happy enjoying federer still for a hopefully long time??

[jayl0ve]

I don't think equpiment/training should factor into the equation...everybody has to play with basically the same equipment as each other, so it's not like players today have some kind of 'advantage' over other players because the racquets today are 3 oz. lighter than they were in the 70's. Rod Laver pushed his equipment as far as it could go, as did McEnroe, as did Sampras and now Federer is. The tennis today isn't 'better' or 'harder' than it was back in the day, it's just 'different'.

[Q. Reese]

I don't think equpiment/training should factor into the equation...everybody has to play with basically the same equipment as each other, so it's not like players today have some kind of 'advantage' over other players because the racquets today are 3 oz. lighter than they were in the 70's. Rod Laver pushed his equipment as far as it could go, as did McEnroe, as did Sampras and now Federer is. The tennis today isn't 'better' or 'harder' than it was back in the day, it's just 'different'.

Yep. This is what I said early in this thread. I totally agree to this.

[Rob ITST]

Here's the reason I think the equipment matters:

If you took Rod Laver the way he played in his day and stuck a graphite racquet in his hand, he still wouldn't be able to beat most pros today. His strokes just weren't designed to take advantage of the larger, lighter, more powerful racquets. So to say that you could even the score by giving Federer and Laver the same equipment means that you must assume that they would be as proficient in each others era as they are in their own. I'm not sure you can assume that. Just because Laver could master the strokes used in his day doesn't mean he could master the strokes used today; and vice-versa for Federer.

Basically what I'm saying is that if graphite racquets had existed in Laver's day, then someone else might have been the best player of that era. And if the pros still used wood racquets, then Federer might not be the player he is today. Maybe that isn't true, but I think it must be considered.

[Cro Morgan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0vsJEKIbus

its Roger!

All that video proves is, Federer is better than Roddick. Still waiting/looking for the Federer v. Borg video.

comparing any careers just between the ages 17 and 25 isn't fair at all. it's like holding a pistol on somebody's chest telling him, now you are 17, so you have to play successfully from now on.

Borg retired at the ripe old age of 26, so the tennis pundits have little choice but to compare their careers between the ages of 17 and 25.

Another fun fact ...

According to the match scores listed on the ATP website, Borg bageled his opponents (sets won 6-0) 116 times from 1973 through 1981 (8 years) - compared to Roger Federer's 55 bagels from 1999 through the 2007 French Open (8 years).

... and Federer supposedly dominates the tour? Well, he does, just not like Borg did back in the day

[SundanceKid]

The tennis today isn't 'better' or 'harder' than it was back in the day, it's just 'different'.

i've never said, tennis in the past was worse. i've just say tennis today is faster....and faster means more intensive....that's a fact.

come on you cannot compare especially clay tennis in the past with today.
it has gone up more and more to human limits. and it will also do that in the future further on.

material and human athletics will develop....as it was always the case

[Johnnn Boyyy]

technology in the raquets play a huge rule in how well players play. i mean Fed and Nadal have to have veryyyyyy fast swings... some have been calculated at 90mph in wrist speed. u don't see MacErnroe pulling that kind of power off with his lackluster "touch" shots. Bjorg couldn't handle doing so either. so technology does change the game and has a huge role on who is good and how isn't. not many people can have such quick hands and put so much spin on the ball while hitting with so much power and keeping it inbounds. Roddick hits the ball the hardest but yet he misses long a lot. Fed hits super hard and hits it in. its why he is so dominating. Nadal does this too, almost too much wrist speed for his own good. The game of tennis is a million times faster and reaction time has been cut down drastically. you don't have much time to react and construct points like you did in the past. Its another reason why i feel its amazing how the players today play compared to the past. watch ESPN classic for whoever has it and watch old tennis matches... MacErnoe is on there alot and so is Bjorn and Borris Becker. The matches are soo slow its sorta mind-blowing. So technology really does matter, we just take it for granite since we see it everyday.

[Q. Reese]

All that video proves is, Federer is better than Roddick. Still waiting/looking for the Federer v. Borg video.

Hah. Let me know when you find it.