With 15 Majors and a Career Grand Slam, Is Roger Federer the Greatest Of All Time?

Is Federer the Greatest Of All Time?


  • Total voters
    118
  • Poll closed .

GasquetGOAT

Hall of Fame
Pete Sampras said himself in the interview, "...in my book, he is."

For those that vote NO, state your reason.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roger Federer Surpasses Tiger Woods, Pete Sampras, and Rafael Nadal

Switzerland's Roger Federer has defeated American Andy Roddick to claim his sixth Wimbledon crown in London, England. The epic contest will go down as the greatest match in men's singles history held on Centre Court.

The final score was 5-7, 7-6 (8-6), 7-6 (7-5), 3-6, 16-14. The two men played the longest fifth set, in terms of games—30—in Wimbledon history.

With the victory, Federer leapfrogged a trio of athletic superstars: one legend of his sport, a current tennis standout and the athlete heretofore considered to be the greatest and most dominant active sportsman in the world today, with apologies to 14-time Olympic gold medalist Michael Phelps.

Federer's triumph at the All England Club garnered him his 15th major tennis championship, eclipsing the 14 won by seven-time Wimbledon titlist Pete Sampras.

The Swiss had already achieved the career Grand Slam distinction earlier this month by virtue of his claiming the French Open crown. None of Sampras' majors successes ever took place on the clay surface of Roland Garros.

Roger Federer now regains the men's world No. 1 ranking from injured rival Rafael Nadal. The Majorca, Spain native lost in the fourth round of the French Open and was unable to defend his 2008 Wimbledon title due to tendinitis in both knees.

Federer is now the greatest men's tennis player since at least the inception of the Open Era in 1968. Some will argue that Rod Laver, with his two Grand Slams and 11 major championships, was at least as good as Federer.

This is not a widely-held view among the legends of the sport, however. Sampras has already stated he feels the Swiss is the greatest in the history of tennis, and that was before Federer's victory today on Centre Court.

John McEnroe, Swedish icon Bjorn Borg and even Laver himself have all concurred.

Federer is the most prolific major championship winner in the history of his sport. Anything Laver may or may not have done—against inferior athletes from a smaller talent base—is merely hypothetical, and cannot be held against the Swiss.

Federer is the best male player to ever lift a racket, much as Tiger Woods, should he capture five more major titles, will surpass Jack Nicklaus in golf's own pantheon.

Woods, like Sampras and Nadal, is the final casualty of Federer's 2009 Wimbledon success. Tiger, who once made a fantastic commercial lauding good friend Federer's achievements while simultaneously declaring his own, superior horde of major championships, now finds himself on the losing side of not only that ledger, but the aforementioned one as well: Federer has achieved all-time greatest status in his field while Tiger yet remains some distance away from that mark in his own sport.

That is, of course, to be expected. Golfers have far longer careers than do tennis players. It stands to reason that it would take longer for Woods to surpass Nicklaus' 18 majors than it would take Federer to overtake Sampras' 14.

Unfortunately for Woods, however, this is where such pleasant considerations end.

Federer has won 15 major championships in 41 tournaments. Tiger Woods has captured 14 major titles in 54 attempts. That is, Tiger Woods has had over three years more than Federer to accumulate major victories and yet the Swiss still has surpassed the golfing prodigy.

Further, it must be pointed out that Woods is 33 years old and Federer has yet to turn 28. Tiger Woods won his initial major championship in 1997. Roger secured the first of his 15 in 2003.

Since the beginning of 2003, Federer has won 15 major titles. Woods, in the same time period of time, has taken home "just" six.

Roger Federer is the most dominant, accomplished athlete of his era. He is the greatest men's tennis player in the history of the sport.

What of Michael Phelps?

In addition to his 15 major championships, Federer is also the proud owner of his own Olympic gold medal. Federer and Swiss countryman Stanislas Wawrinka won the men's doubles event at the 2008 Beijing Games.

Roger Federer 16, Michael Phelps 14.

Of Phelps' 14 Olympic gold medals, it has to be said, five came as part of a group. Only one of Federer's 16 major championships and gold medal came as part of a pairing. There are no medley relays in men's tennis to bolster one's individual accomplishments.

Enjoy and embrace the singular athletic excellence that is Federer. As of today, he stands alone on the pinnacle of world sport. Stands above Woods, Phelps, Kobe Bryant and the rest.

He has achieved the historical apex of men's tennis yet shows no true signs of decline. Federer has, you will recall, won three of the last four tennis majors. How many will he possess when he finally does hang up his racket, 16, 18, 20?

No one can answer that question with any certainty today, not even the Swiss Maestro himself.

Where Federer concludes his career is a topic for another time. For today, it is enough to know that in him we have the privilege of watching not only the best male player who ever participated in his sport but also the greatest and most dominant athlete of his era.

And, for that matter, one of the greatest sports competitors of any era.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...woods-pete-sampras-and-rafael-nadal/show_full
 
Last edited:
Rod Laver also said it's hard to compare different eras, which I agree with. Federer's certainly the best of this era, which I'd include Pete in, but it's hard to name a GOAT b/c of the different era's. To me, Borg, Laver, and Fed are the GOATs of their respective eras. Anything more than that is speculation.
 

grafrules

Banned
No most accomplished ever is not the greatest ever. In some cases like Steffi Graf you are both the most accomplished ever and the greatest ever. In some cases like Federer you are the most accomplished ever but the 8th greatest ever.

He still could become the greatest ever someday but these are the things he has got to do:

1. Win a Davis Cup title
2. Win Olympic gold in singles in 2012
3. Break or tie the U.S Open and Wimbledon records of 7
4. Win atleast one more French Open
5. Win atleast a non calender slma
6. Improve his return of serve
7. Improve his backhand
8. Improve his net game
9. Revive his old forehand
10. keep improving his serve
11. Vasty improve his head to head with Nadal in every conceivable way: in slam finals, overall, on clay
12. Win atleast one slam each year until 2012 atleast

If he does those things he would move up from 8th and be in consideration for the greatest ever perhaps.
 
Last edited:

avmoghe

Semi-Pro
The Sampras claim to Rod Laver's GOAT title has simply been replaced by Federer's claim. And yes, the Federer claim is far stronger because of his performance on clay.

Going blindly, I'm tempted to say Laver because of the Open Era Slam (and excellent performance on hard courts in the non-slam tournaments) - but that really depends on how competitive and challenging the sport was back then. If competition back then can be shown to be significantly weaker than today's, then Federer.

Either Federer or Laver though. Its between these two guys.
 

Keifers

Legend
Rod Laver also made the point that this assessment should be made at the end of Fed's career -- an excellent point, imo, in response to an awkward question from John McEnroe (trying to put Pete, Rod and Bjorn on the spot and showing questionable judgment in my view).
 

Mick

Legend
15 is not a fixed number. i think he will win many more GS titles before he hangs up his racquets.
 

roysid

Hall of Fame
No most accomplished ever is not the greatest ever. In some cases like Steffi Graf you are both the most accomplished ever and the greatest ever. In some cases like Federer you are the most accomplished ever but the 8th greatest ever.

He still could become the greatest ever someday but these are the things he has got to do:

1. Win a Davis Cup title
2. Win Olympic gold in singles in 2012
3. Break or tie the U.S Open and Wimbledon records of 7
4. Win atleast one more French Open
5. Win atleast a non calender slma
6. Improve his return of serve
7. Improve his backhand
8. Improve his net game
9. Revive his old forehand
10. keep improving his serve
11. Vasty improve his head to head with Nadal in every conceivable way: in slam finals, overall, on clay
12. Win atleast one slam each year until 2012 atleast

If he does those things he would move up from 8th and be in consideration for the greatest ever perhaps.
Hello, it's about all time best men's player. Now tell me who is better than Federer.

And speaking of woman's, I'm a huge Graf fan but there's a big question mark on her achievements because her fan attacked her rival with a knife. We'd never know what would have happened otherwise.
Martina is the greatest women's tennis player ever. As a Steffi fan, you must be knowing that Graf herself told that.

Now back to men's. who are the best in your opinion.
 

Chopin

Hall of Fame
No most accomplished ever is not the greatest ever. In some cases like Steffi Graf you are both the most accomplished ever and the greatest ever. In some cases like Federer you are the most accomplished ever but the 8th greatest ever.

He still could become the greatest ever someday but these are the things he has got to do:

1. Win a Davis Cup title
2. Win Olympic gold in singles in 2012
3. Break or tie the U.S Open and Wimbledon records of 7
4. Win atleast one more French Open
5. Win atleast a non calender slma
6. Improve his return of serve
7. Improve his backhand
8. Improve his net game
9. Revive his old forehand
10. keep improving his serve
11. Vasty improve his head to head with Nadal in every conceivable way: in slam finals, overall, on clay
12. Win atleast one slam each year until 2012 atleast

If he does those things he would move up from 8th and be in consideration for the greatest ever perhaps.

Hilarious parody--made my day! :)
 

grafrules

Banned
Hello, it's about all time best men's player. Now tell me who is better than Federer.

Sampras, Laver, Tilden, Budge, Gonzales, Rosewall, Budge, Borg, are all superior at this moment. Most accomplished ever and greatest ever are two totally different things. How can a guy whose only aspect of the game that is amongst the best all time are his forehand and mental toughness be the greatest ever.

Martina is the greatest women's tennis player ever.

Martina is a good #2 all time after Graf.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Sampras, Laver, Tilden, Budge, Gonzales, Rosewall, Budge, Borg, are all superior at this moment.



Martina is a good #2 all time after Graf.

Disagree on both accounts.Aside from Laver I don't consider any of those players superior to Fed.

Also for me Navratilova is the WTA GOAT.

However I respect your opinion.
 

grafrules

Banned
Disagree on both accounts.Aside from Laver I don't consider any of those players superior to Fed.

Also for me Navratilova is the WTA GOAT.

However I respect your opinion.

Gonzales and Rosewall would have won many more slams than Federer has at this point, or that Sampras did win, had it been Open tennis then. Laver would have won atleast 15 and still won 2 Calender Slams (67 and 69 instead). Tilden and Budge would have won a ton of slams in their day had the format of tennis been like now. Sampras won almost as much vs much tougher competition and had a better tennis game overall by far. Much better serve, much better volleys, much better overhead, more overall athletic ability, similar return and backhand, almost as great a forehand, almost as good a mover, and similar mental tougness (now that I have upgraded Roger's in my mind). Borg was dominant on the polar opposites of clay and grass to extremes Roger hasnt even approached, and also faced a tougher field.

Graf is a much more balanced all surface player than Navratilova, with more longevity (longevity of great play, not just very good play), more consistency, and even more dominance in the slams at her peak. I am totally fine with anyone arguing Graf, Navratilova, Evert, or Court as the greatest ever but Graf is my pick, and pretty everyone seems to have Graf and Martina 1-2 in some order it seems, with Evert and Court 3-4 in some order. Very few and virtually no experts have either Evert or Court over either Graf or Navratilova.
 

GasquetGOAT

Hall of Fame
Rod Laver also said it's hard to compare different eras, which I agree with. Federer's certainly the best of this era, which I'd include Pete in, but it's hard to name a GOAT b/c of the different era's. To me, Borg, Laver, and Fed are the GOATs of their respective eras. Anything more than that is speculation.

That's a fair point. But to me if you had to differentiate eras, there are only two, Federer the GOAT of open era and Laver the GOAT before that.
 

Steve132

Professional
Gonzales and Rosewall would have won many more slams than Federer has at this point, or that Sampras did win, had it been Open tennis then. Laver would have won atleast 15 and still won 2 Calender Slams (67 and 69 instead). Tilden and Budge would have won a ton of slams in their day had the format of tennis been like now. Sampras won almost as much vs much tougher competition and had a better tennis game overall by far. Much better serve, much better volleys, much better overhead, more overall athletic ability, similar return and backhand, almost as great a forehand, almost as good a mover, and similar mental tougness (now that I have upgraded Roger's in my mind). Borg was dominant on the polar opposites of clay and grass to extremes Roger hasnt even approached, and also faced a tougher field.

Your case against Federer seems to be based entirely on conjecture and unsubstantiated assertions. You claim that "Gonzales and Rosewall would have won many more slams than Federer has at this point" and that "Tilden and Budge would have won a ton of slams in their day had the format of tennis been like now." How do you know this, and how do you know that Federer would not have done what they did if he had been playing in their eras?

In any event, players are judged on what they accomplished, not on what someone believes they might have accomplished. That is why Maureen Connolly and Monica Seles do not receive credit for the titles they would almost certainly have won if they had not been injured.

You also assert that Sampras faced "much tougher competition and had a better tennis game overall by far." The "weak competition" argument has been discussed many times on this board. It is not, for several reasons, an especially compelling argument, but this is not the thread to rehash its weaknesses. I only suggest that you review the players that Sampras faced in three of his last four title runs at Wimbledon - 1997, 1998 and 2000. His highest ranked opponents in these years were #'s 18, 17 and 21 respectively. Some competition.

You also assert as a matter of unquestioned fact that Sampras had a better game than Federer. Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but it is most emphatically not shared by the majority of players and journalists who saw them both in their prime. Without doing any research I can identify Andre Agassi, Nick Bollettieri, Mark Cox, Cliff Drysdale, Tim Henman, Jack Kramer, John McEnroe and Patrick McEnroe as individuals who have identified Federer as the best or most talented player they have ever seen. At the very least your claim is not the self-evident fact that you appear to believe it is.

I was, and remain, a great admirer of Borg. It is absurd, however, to claim that he "was dominant on the polar opposites of clay and grass to extremes Roger hasnt even approached." On grass, Federer is now definitely ahead of Borg. He now has six Wimbledon titles, one more than Borg, and he is the only man to have reached seven successive Wimbledon finals. He had already matched Borg's five successive titles, and did so while losing fewer sets ( 8 compared with 18 for Borg). Federer also has the longest winning streak on grass in the Open era - in fact, he has now won something like 71 of his last 72 matches on the surface, and his only defeat was a 9-7 loss in a five set match. Given all this, I don't see how you can maintain that Borg was more dominant on grass than Federer.

Obviously, Borg was better on clay than anyone else in the Open era with the possible exception of Nadal, but Federer has a fairly distinguished clay court record. He has a title at Roland Garros and five Masters series titles on clay, and only Nadal's excellence prevented him from winning more. For example, Federer is one of only four players to have reached four consecutive French Open finals. The others are Borg himself, Lendl and Nadal. Federer's record at RG over the past five years is 30-4. He is 0-4 against Nadal and 30-0 against everyone else.

You conspicuously avoid mentioning their respective records on hard courts. Borg never won the U.S Open. Federer has done so for five consecutive years, won the Australian Open three times, and posted the Open era's longest winning streak on hard courts. It seems to me that Federer's dominance on grass and hard courts is at least equal to Borg's on grass and clay - and he has won all four of the majors, as opposed to just two for Borg.

In your earlier post you provided a long list of things that Federer had to do to improve his status as a GOAT contender. As far as I know no one had done all of the things you listed, so I'm puzzled about why only Federer has to meet these challenges. Equally important, you ignore the many things that Federer has done that no one else has matched. For example, he is the only player - male or female, amateur or professional eras - to have won 11 majors in a four year period. He holds the all time record of 10 for consecutive major finals reached. His closest competitor is Jack Crawford with 7 in the 1930's. His closest competitor in the Open era is .... Federer himself, with six, his current streak. No one has come close to his current record of 21 straight semi finals in majors. These records all stand even if you count only tournaments entered, to accommodate players who did not enter the Australian Open when that event had lower status than it currently does. Federer also has the record for the most consecutive weeks ranked at No. 1. I could go on, but I think that I have shown that his achievements stand comparison with those of any other player.

I'm not claiming that Federer is the GOAT. If I were forced to make a choice today I would opt for Rod Laver. I do think, however, that Federer's name belongs in the conversation. Your post does not provide any evidence to the contrary.
 

Kobble

Hall of Fame
You can't compare eras.
1. Wood vs. Graphite are two different games.

2. Poly vs. gut are distinctly different games.

3. Different surfaces require different skills. Each generation has had seasons with different surface compositions.

4. Styles make fights. "A" beats "B," "B" beats "C," and "C" beats "A." A distorted draw shifts the equillibrium. You can't make comparisons like track, where you know someone would run faster under a given condition.

Laver was the best of his era. Borg the best of his. Sampras the best of the 90's, and Federer the most accomplished of the 2000's.

If I were to judge based on what player has made the greatest impression on me, I would say Nadal. He is the first player that I saw do things I thought were not possible. Brad Gilbert said the same thing I wrote on here, that he was making shots out of a video game. The only times I saw passing shots like that was when I used the game genie speed cheat for Super Tennis.
 

pmerk34

Legend
Hello, it's about all time best men's player. Now tell me who is better than Federer.

And speaking of woman's, I'm a huge Graf fan but there's a big question mark on her achievements because her fan attacked her rival with a knife. We'd never know what would have happened otherwise.
Martina is the greatest women's tennis player ever. As a Steffi fan, you must be knowing that Graf herself told that.

Now back to men's. who are the best in your opinion.

Well according to Graf rules Graf was about to overtake Seles anyway.

Yeah right LMAO.
 
Graf is a much more balanced all surface player than Navratilova, with more longevity (longevity of great play, not just very good play), more consistency, and even more dominance in the slams at her peak. I am totally fine with anyone arguing Graf, Navratilova, Evert, or Court as the greatest ever but Graf is my pick, and pretty everyone seems to have Graf and Martina 1-2 in some order it seems, with Evert and Court 3-4 in some order. Very few and virtually no experts have either Evert or Court over either Graf or Navratilova.




Everyone picks Graf??? Anyone who knows anything about tennis will never recognize all Steffi Graf's 22 majors at face value like Chris' and Martina's total. There will always be a pause, question or qualifier because the Seles stabbing will forever be remembered in infamy, just as in skating, Nancy Kerrigan and Tonya Harding.
 
My reason two words:

Rod Laver.

I agree but I think Roger could easily be 2nd before too long now. Maybe even 1st someday but that is only if he goes really strong for another several years and probably acheives a grand slam atleast once.
 
Martina is a good #2 all time after Graf.

There is no way Graf can be viewed as better than Martina and for one reason: she did not have to face the same, consistent high level of same-generation opponents in collecting her 22 grand slam singles titles. Her major opponent ended up being Sanchez-Vicario (who became famous as a runner-up to Graf) whereas Martina's major opponent was Chris Evert, who herself won 18 grand slam singles. Graf's major opponent should have been Monica Seles, but Seles unfortunately was taken out of the game by a knife attack at the point where she was consistently dominating Graf on every surface except for grass. Finally, at the point when Graf played both Evert and Navratilova both of the latter two were in the twilight of their competitive careers and were over 30 (13 years older than Graf when she won her first French Open in 1987).
 
There is no way Graf can be viewed as better than Martina and for one reason: she did not have to face the same, consistent high level of same-generation opponents in collecting her 22 grand slam singles titles. Her major opponent ended up being Sanchez-Vicario (who became famous as a runner-up to Graf) whereas Martina's major opponent was Chris Evert, who herself won 18 grand slam singles. Graf's major opponent should have been Monica Seles, but Seles unfortunately was taken out of the game by a knife attack at the point where she was consistently dominating Graf on every surface except for grass. Finally, at the point when Graf played both Evert and Navratilova both of the latter two were in the twilight of their competitive careers and were over 30 (13 years older than Graf when she won her first French Open in 1987).

Didnt you used to post as ATPballkid and gj011.
 

GameSampras

Banned
Statistically.. Hes right up there with laver


Realistically? There is no GOAT. No way to prove it.

Stats dont tell the entire story.
 
Statistically.. Hes right up there with laver


Realistically? There is no GOAT. No way to prove it.

Stats dont tell the entire story.

Yes that is very true. Most accomplished player does not automatically equate to greatest. Greatest is a subjective term based alot on opinion. If some of the *******s on the forum were declaring him the greatest ever when he had only 6-9 slams and was close to no major records, then it is like others all have to unaminously bestow him the greatest ever honor when he does break those records either.
 

asafi2

Rookie
Your case against Federer seems to be based entirely on conjecture and unsubstantiated assertions. You claim that "Gonzales and Rosewall would have won many more slams than Federer has at this point" and that "Tilden and Budge would have won a ton of slams in their day had the format of tennis been like now." How do you know this, and how do you know that Federer would not have done what they did if he had been playing in their eras?

In any event, players are judged on what they accomplished, not on what someone believes they might have accomplished. That is why Maureen Connolly and Monica Seles do not receive credit for the titles they would almost certainly have won if they had not been injured.

You also assert that Sampras faced "much tougher competition and had a better tennis game overall by far." The "weak competition" argument has been discussed many times on this board. It is not, for several reasons, an especially compelling argument, but this is not the thread to rehash its weaknesses. I only suggest that you review the players that Sampras faced in three of his last four title runs at Wimbledon - 1997, 1998 and 2000. His highest ranked opponents in these years were #'s 18, 17 and 21 respectively. Some competition.

You also assert as a matter of unquestioned fact that Sampras had a better game than Federer. Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but it is most emphatically not shared by the majority of players and journalists who saw them both in their prime. Without doing any research I can identify Andre Agassi, Nick Bollettieri, Mark Cox, Cliff Drysdale, Tim Henman, Jack Kramer, John McEnroe and Patrick McEnroe as individuals who have identified Federer as the best or most talented player they have ever seen. At the very least your claim is not the self-evident fact that you appear to believe it is.

I was, and remain, a great admirer of Borg. It is absurd, however, to claim that he "was dominant on the polar opposites of clay and grass to extremes Roger hasnt even approached." On grass, Federer is now definitely ahead of Borg. He now has six Wimbledon titles, one more than Borg, and he is the only man to have reached seven successive Wimbledon finals. He had already matched Borg's five successive titles, and did so while losing fewer sets ( 8 compared with 18 for Borg). Federer also has the longest winning streak on grass in the Open era - in fact, he has now won something like 71 of his last 72 matches on the surface, and his only defeat was a 9-7 loss in a five set match. Given all this, I don't see how you can maintain that Borg was more dominant on grass than Federer.

Obviously, Borg was better on clay than anyone else in the Open era with the possible exception of Nadal, but Federer has a fairly distinguished clay court record. He has a title at Roland Garros and five Masters series titles on clay, and only Nadal's excellence prevented him from winning more. For example, Federer is one of only four players to have reached four consecutive French Open finals. The others are Borg himself, Lendl and Nadal. Federer's record at RG over the past five years is 30-4. He is 0-4 against Nadal and 30-0 against everyone else.

You conspicuously avoid mentioning their respective records on hard courts. Borg never won the U.S Open. Federer has done so for five consecutive years, won the Australian Open three times, and posted the Open era's longest winning streak on hard courts. It seems to me that Federer's dominance on grass and hard courts is at least equal to Borg's on grass and clay - and he has won all four of the majors, as opposed to just two for Borg.

In your earlier post you provided a long list of things that Federer had to do to improve his status as a GOAT contender. As far as I know no one had done all of the things you listed, so I'm puzzled about why only Federer has to meet these challenges. Equally important, you ignore the many things that Federer has done that no one else has matched. For example, he is the only player - male or female, amateur or professional eras - to have won 11 majors in a four year period. He holds the all time record of 10 for consecutive major finals reached. His closest competitor is Jack Crawford with 7 in the 1930's. His closest competitor in the Open era is .... Federer himself, with six, his current streak. No one has come close to his current record of 21 straight semi finals in majors. These records all stand even if you count only tournaments entered, to accommodate players who did not enter the Australian Open when that event had lower status than it currently does. Federer also has the record for the most consecutive weeks ranked at No. 1. I could go on, but I think that I have shown that his achievements stand comparison with those of any other player.

I'm not claiming that Federer is the GOAT. If I were forced to make a choice today I would opt for Rod Laver. I do think, however, that Federer's name belongs in the conversation. Your post does not provide any evidence to the contrary.

Excellent. Complete ownage.
 

grafrules

Banned
How on earth does Federer have a more complete game than Sampras. Sampras has a far better serve and is far better at the net. Federer isnt much better than Sampras in any area, Federer might have the greatest forehand ever but Sampras's is still close behind. Backhand and return of serve Federer is only slightly over Pete, if at all. Movement again Federer only a bit in front at most. Mental toughness most would agree Sampras still has the edge, and in overall athletic ability too. So how pray tell is Federer's game "more complete" than Sampras's.

Most others in the Former Pro Player section seem to feel Laver, Budge, Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall, all achieved more than Federer as well.
 

Bud

Bionic Poster
How on earth does Federer have a more complete game than Sampras. Sampras has a far better serve and is far better at the net. Federer isnt much better than Sampras in any area, Federer might have the greatest forehand ever but Sampras's is still close behind. Backhand and return of serve Federer is only slightly over Pete, if at all. Movement again Federer only a bit in front at most. Mental toughness most would agree Sampras still has the edge, and in overall athletic ability too. So how pray tell is Federer's game "more complete" than Sampras's.

Most others in the Former Pro Player section seem to feel Laver, Budge, Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall, all achieved more than Federer as well.

Federer can play and compete on clay... something Sampras never could.
 

GameSampras

Banned
How on earth does Federer have a more complete game than Sampras. Sampras has a far better serve and is far better at the net. Federer isnt much better than Sampras in any area, Federer might have the greatest forehand ever but Sampras's is still close behind. Backhand and return of serve Federer is only slightly over Pete, if at all. Movement again Federer only a bit in front at most. Mental toughness most would agree Sampras still has the edge, and in overall athletic ability too. So how pray tell is Federer's game "more complete" than Sampras's.

Most others in the Former Pro Player section seem to feel Laver, Budge, Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall, all achieved more than Federer as well.



Oh cause Fed is so much better on clay apparently than Pete. So that makes Fed "more complete".



We have to remember now.. Fed is the GOAT. Pete is yesterdays news. LOL
 
Who are you going to believe - all those assembled greats(Sampras, Laver, Borg, McEnroe, etc...) or TTW trolls who know FAR better!
 

harinder

Rookie
How on earth does Federer have a more complete game than Sampras. Sampras has a far better serve and is far better at the net. Federer isnt much better than Sampras in any area, Federer might have the greatest forehand ever but Sampras's is still close behind. Backhand and return of serve Federer is only slightly over Pete, if at all. Movement again Federer only a bit in front at most. Mental toughness most would agree Sampras still has the edge, and in overall athletic ability too. So how pray tell is Federer's game "more complete" than Sampras's.

Most others in the Former Pro Player section seem to feel Laver, Budge, Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall, all achieved more than Federer as well.

So sampras has a 'far better' serve but federer's forehand is only 'slightly better'. ok...
 

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
Your case against Federer seems to be based entirely on conjecture and unsubstantiated assertions. You claim that "Gonzales and Rosewall would have won many more slams than Federer has at this point" and that "Tilden and Budge would have won a ton of slams in their day had the format of tennis been like now." How do you know this, and how do you know that Federer would not have done what they did if he had been playing in their eras?

In any event, players are judged on what they accomplished, not on what someone believes they might have accomplished. That is why Maureen Connolly and Monica Seles do not receive credit for the titles they would almost certainly have won if they had not been injured.

You also assert that Sampras faced "much tougher competition and had a better tennis game overall by far." The "weak competition" argument has been discussed many times on this board. It is not, for several reasons, an especially compelling argument, but this is not the thread to rehash its weaknesses. I only suggest that you review the players that Sampras faced in three of his last four title runs at Wimbledon - 1997, 1998 and 2000. His highest ranked opponents in these years were #'s 18, 17 and 21 respectively. Some competition.

You also assert as a matter of unquestioned fact that Sampras had a better game than Federer. Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but it is most emphatically not shared by the majority of players and journalists who saw them both in their prime. Without doing any research I can identify Andre Agassi, Nick Bollettieri, Mark Cox, Cliff Drysdale, Tim Henman, Jack Kramer, John McEnroe and Patrick McEnroe as individuals who have identified Federer as the best or most talented player they have ever seen. At the very least your claim is not the self-evident fact that you appear to believe it is.

I was, and remain, a great admirer of Borg. It is absurd, however, to claim that he "was dominant on the polar opposites of clay and grass to extremes Roger hasnt even approached." On grass, Federer is now definitely ahead of Borg. He now has six Wimbledon titles, one more than Borg, and he is the only man to have reached seven successive Wimbledon finals. He had already matched Borg's five successive titles, and did so while losing fewer sets ( 8 compared with 18 for Borg). Federer also has the longest winning streak on grass in the Open era - in fact, he has now won something like 71 of his last 72 matches on the surface, and his only defeat was a 9-7 loss in a five set match. Given all this, I don't see how you can maintain that Borg was more dominant on grass than Federer.

Obviously, Borg was better on clay than anyone else in the Open era with the possible exception of Nadal, but Federer has a fairly distinguished clay court record. He has a title at Roland Garros and five Masters series titles on clay, and only Nadal's excellence prevented him from winning more. For example, Federer is one of only four players to have reached four consecutive French Open finals. The others are Borg himself, Lendl and Nadal. Federer's record at RG over the past five years is 30-4. He is 0-4 against Nadal and 30-0 against everyone else.

You conspicuously avoid mentioning their respective records on hard courts. Borg never won the U.S Open. Federer has done so for five consecutive years, won the Australian Open three times, and posted the Open era's longest winning streak on hard courts. It seems to me that Federer's dominance on grass and hard courts is at least equal to Borg's on grass and clay - and he has won all four of the majors, as opposed to just two for Borg.

In your earlier post you provided a long list of things that Federer had to do to improve his status as a GOAT contender. As far as I know no one had done all of the things you listed, so I'm puzzled about why only Federer has to meet these challenges. Equally important, you ignore the many things that Federer has done that no one else has matched. For example, he is the only player - male or female, amateur or professional eras - to have won 11 majors in a four year period. He holds the all time record of 10 for consecutive major finals reached. His closest competitor is Jack Crawford with 7 in the 1930's. His closest competitor in the Open era is .... Federer himself, with six, his current streak. No one has come close to his current record of 21 straight semi finals in majors. These records all stand even if you count only tournaments entered, to accommodate players who did not enter the Australian Open when that event had lower status than it currently does. Federer also has the record for the most consecutive weeks ranked at No. 1. I could go on, but I think that I have shown that his achievements stand comparison with those of any other player.

I'm not claiming that Federer is the GOAT. If I were forced to make a choice today I would opt for Rod Laver. I do think, however, that Federer's name belongs in the conversation. Your post does not provide any evidence to the contrary.

showimage1.gif
 

harinder

Rookie
Your case against Federer seems to be based entirely on conjecture and unsubstantiated assertions. You claim that "Gonzales and Rosewall would have won many more slams than Federer has at this point" and that "Tilden and Budge would have won a ton of slams in their day had the format of tennis been like now." How do you know this, and how do you know that Federer would not have done what they did if he had been playing in their eras?

In any event, players are judged on what they accomplished, not on what someone believes they might have accomplished. That is why Maureen Connolly and Monica Seles do not receive credit for the titles they would almost certainly have won if they had not been injured.

You also assert that Sampras faced "much tougher competition and had a better tennis game overall by far." The "weak competition" argument has been discussed many times on this board. It is not, for several reasons, an especially compelling argument, but this is not the thread to rehash its weaknesses. I only suggest that you review the players that Sampras faced in three of his last four title runs at Wimbledon - 1997, 1998 and 2000. His highest ranked opponents in these years were #'s 18, 17 and 21 respectively. Some competition.

You also assert as a matter of unquestioned fact that Sampras had a better game than Federer. Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but it is most emphatically not shared by the majority of players and journalists who saw them both in their prime. Without doing any research I can identify Andre Agassi, Nick Bollettieri, Mark Cox, Cliff Drysdale, Tim Henman, Jack Kramer, John McEnroe and Patrick McEnroe as individuals who have identified Federer as the best or most talented player they have ever seen. At the very least your claim is not the self-evident fact that you appear to believe it is.

I was, and remain, a great admirer of Borg. It is absurd, however, to claim that he "was dominant on the polar opposites of clay and grass to extremes Roger hasnt even approached." On grass, Federer is now definitely ahead of Borg. He now has six Wimbledon titles, one more than Borg, and he is the only man to have reached seven successive Wimbledon finals. He had already matched Borg's five successive titles, and did so while losing fewer sets ( 8 compared with 18 for Borg). Federer also has the longest winning streak on grass in the Open era - in fact, he has now won something like 71 of his last 72 matches on the surface, and his only defeat was a 9-7 loss in a five set match. Given all this, I don't see how you can maintain that Borg was more dominant on grass than Federer.

Obviously, Borg was better on clay than anyone else in the Open era with the possible exception of Nadal, but Federer has a fairly distinguished clay court record. He has a title at Roland Garros and five Masters series titles on clay, and only Nadal's excellence prevented him from winning more. For example, Federer is one of only four players to have reached four consecutive French Open finals. The others are Borg himself, Lendl and Nadal. Federer's record at RG over the past five years is 30-4. He is 0-4 against Nadal and 30-0 against everyone else.

You conspicuously avoid mentioning their respective records on hard courts. Borg never won the U.S Open. Federer has done so for five consecutive years, won the Australian Open three times, and posted the Open era's longest winning streak on hard courts. It seems to me that Federer's dominance on grass and hard courts is at least equal to Borg's on grass and clay - and he has won all four of the majors, as opposed to just two for Borg.

In your earlier post you provided a long list of things that Federer had to do to improve his status as a GOAT contender. As far as I know no one had done all of the things you listed, so I'm puzzled about why only Federer has to meet these challenges. Equally important, you ignore the many things that Federer has done that no one else has matched. For example, he is the only player - male or female, amateur or professional eras - to have won 11 majors in a four year period. He holds the all time record of 10 for consecutive major finals reached. His closest competitor is Jack Crawford with 7 in the 1930's. His closest competitor in the Open era is .... Federer himself, with six, his current streak. No one has come close to his current record of 21 straight semi finals in majors. These records all stand even if you count only tournaments entered, to accommodate players who did not enter the Australian Open when that event had lower status than it currently does. Federer also has the record for the most consecutive weeks ranked at No. 1. I could go on, but I think that I have shown that his achievements stand comparison with those of any other player.

I'm not claiming that Federer is the GOAT. If I were forced to make a choice today I would opt for Rod Laver. I do think, however, that Federer's name belongs in the conversation. Your post does not provide any evidence to the contrary.

epic post. youre my new hero
 

NikeWilson

Semi-Pro
first of all, Federer's stats are incredible and by far the greatest stats ever.
however, the years he's unquestionably dominated the game '04-'07, he hasn't truly had to face any worthy adversary. His toughest competitor during the time was Andy Roddick(Roddick was #1 during before Federer took over, and Roddick faced Fed in 3 Grand Slam Finals - more than any other player during those years). Most tennis experts and fans, including myself, do not truly think Roddick is equal to most of the top players in the '90s. Pete, Andre, Courier, Chang, Edberg, Becker, and many more '90s players in their prime could easily defeat Roddick in his prime. Bottomline, that's how bad the competition was for Federer during that 4-5 year span of dominance. Hewitt was on his way out, Safin never lived up to expectations. Agassi was on his way out too. The competition was so weak for Federer.
So, keep that in mind. Sampras had to win his majors playing against a deeper field of competitive players, arguably the toughest deepest era of great tennis players - the '90s.

also, the past couple years there has been 1 man that Federer truly cannot beat: Rafael Nadal.
Nadal owns Federer. He kicks Fed's ass every time at the French Open. And destroyed him last year 6-1, 6-3, 6-0. Then he kicked Fed's ass at Wimbledon last year. Then he kicked Fed's ass at the Australian Open this year.
Fed lucked out at the French and Wimbledon this year due to Nadal's injury. Otherwise, there's no question in my mind Nadal would've beaten Federer in both tournaments.

so, bottomline: Based on "most Grand Slams" and the Career Grand Slam, Federer is the best.
But there is one man that dominates him: Nadal. If Nadal continues to win more Grand Slams, and wins the US Open for the Career Grand Slam, there is definitely an argument to be made that Rafael Nadal could be the Greatest Player of All Time.
Only Time will tell. But, if injuries don't stop him, then he has a great chance.
 
first of all, Federer's stats are incredible and by far the greatest stats ever.
however, the years he's unquestionably dominated the game '04-'07, he hasn't truly had to face any worthy adversary. His toughest competitor during the time was Andy Roddick(Roddick was #1 during before Federer took over, and Roddick faced Fed in 3 Grand Slam Finals - more than any other player during those years). Most tennis experts and fans, including myself, do not truly think Roddick is equal to most of the top players in the '90s. Pete, Andre, Courier, Chang, Edberg, Becker, and many more '90s players in their prime could easily defeat Roddick in his prime. Bottomline, that's how bad the competition was for Federer during that 4-5 year span of dominance. Hewitt was on his way out, Safin never lived up to expectations. Agassi was on his way out too. The competition was so weak for Federer.
So, keep that in mind. Sampras had to win his majors playing against a deeper field of competitive players, arguably the toughest deepest era of great tennis players - the '90s.

ROTFL!!!! For starters Hewitt in 2004-2005 was really the 2nd best player, other than maybe Nadal in 2005. He lost to Federer 5 times in slams which Federer went on to win and had a winning head to head with Roddick during those couple years. He lost to the eventual champion of all 7 slams he played and would have outdone his 2001-2002 years without Federer. He was unlucky to start 2004 with a lower ranking and seedings after an injury plagued 2003, and thus had the misfortune to draw the immovable Federer much earlier than Roddick. He would have overtaken Roddick in the rankings well before the end of 2004 otherwise. Roddick easily beaten by Chang!?!? What a joke. A past his prime Chang couldnt even beat a pre-prime newbie Roddick on CLAY at the French when Roddick was cramping. Chang is basically a weaker verson of Hewitt, something John McEnroe, Jim Courier, Pat Cash and others both mentioned while commentating on Hewitt in the first half of the decade, so likely Roddick and Hewitt are both superior to him in that case. Edberg and Becker were not in their primes at all during the Sampras dominance. Becker's prime was 1985-1991, Edberg's was 1987-1992. By the time of 1993-1994 Becker was losing early rounds in 75% of the slams outside Wimbledon, including early in most hard court slams he played to unseeded opponents, and Edberg was dropping out of the top 10. Courier too burnt out totally after 1993, his prime was 1991-1993 so Sampras only got one year of that. Agassi was on sabattical most years anyway over his long and bizarre career, in fact he won 6 of his 8 slams outside the Sampras 1993-1998 reign as king of tennis, 5 of the 8 after it at 29 or older. Atleast Federer had a couple years or more of all of Nadal, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, close to their best.

Sampras and the 90s the deepest era ever!?! Nice joke. The late 60s, mid to late 70s, the 80s, and the early 90s, had far more depth and overall comeptition than the Sampras era in the 90s ever did.
 
Last edited:

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
first of all, Federer's stats are incredible and by far the greatest stats ever.
however, the years he's unquestionably dominated the game '04-'07, he hasn't truly had to face any worthy adversary. His toughest competitor during the time was Andy Roddick(Roddick was #1 during before Federer took over, and Roddick faced Fed in 3 Grand Slam Finals - more than any other player during those years). Most tennis experts and fans, including myself, do not truly think Roddick is equal to most of the top players in the '90s. Pete, Andre, Courier, Chang, Edberg, Becker, and many more '90s players in their prime could easily defeat Roddick in his prime. Bottomline, that's how bad the competition was for Federer during that 4-5 year span of dominance. Hewitt was on his way out, Safin never lived up to expectations. Agassi was on his way out too. The competition was so weak for Federer.
So, keep that in mind. Sampras had to win his majors playing against a deeper field of competitive players, arguably the toughest deepest era of great tennis players - the '90s.


Here you go:

Sampras Competition in slams he won:

T. Martin. (zero slams)
C. Moya (1 slam)
C. Piloine beat him twice (zero slams)
J. Courier (4 slams)
G. Ivanisavec. beat him tiwce. (1 slam)
B. Becker. (7 slams)
P. Rafter (2 slams)
M. Chang (1 slam)
A. Agassi. beat him 4 times (8 slams)



Try again.
 

prosealster

Professional
Here you go:

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Sampras Competition in slams he won:[/FONT]

T. Martin. (zero slams)
C. Moya (1 slam)
C. Piloine beat him twice (zero slams)
J. Courier (4 slams)
G. Ivanisavec. beat him tiwce. (1 slam)
B. Becker. (7 slams)
P. Rafter (2 slams)
M. Chang (1 slam)
A. Agassi. beat him 4 times (8 slams)



Try again.

boom boom has 6 i think
 

Eviscerator

Banned
But then there's the fact of Laver playing pre Open era...trust me, it's not as cut and dry as you make it.

True as he might have had a dozen more slams and possibly even another Grand Slam all those years he missed. The bottom line is Federer has not accomplished the holy grail of tennis, that being a Grand Slam. Until he does, he will never be the undisputed GOAT.
 
Here you go:

Sampras Competition in slams he won:

T. Martin. (zero slams)
C. Moya (1 slam)
C. Piloine beat him twice (zero slams)
J. Courier (4 slams)
G. Ivanisavec. beat him tiwce. (1 slam)
B. Becker. (7 slams)
P. Rafter (2 slams)
M. Chang (1 slam)
A. Agassi. beat him 4 times (8 slams)


Try again.

Funny how a guy like Pioline who didnt even win his first ATP tour title until he was 27 managed to make 2 slam finals in arguably the deepest era ever in tennis. :lol:
 

NikeWilson

Semi-Pro
When Federer looks back on his '04-'07 dominating years, who is he gonna say was his most formiddable opponent?
To be honest, he should be embarrased, because that span of time, the competition was weak.
 
True as he might have had a dozen more slams and possibly even another Grand Slam all those years he missed. The bottom line is Federer has not accomplished the holy grail of tennis, that being a Grand Slam. Until he does, he will never be the undisputed GOAT.

In that case Sampras sure as heck isnt anywhere near GOAT status. He hasnt even won more than 2 slams in a single year even once, and he didnt even reach the final once at one of the 4 slams.
 
Top