Where does Federer rank among all-time greats?
- Thread starter flying24
- Start date
Baghdatis72
Hall of Fame
No one knows exactly and no one will ever know for sure.
Federer is the best I've ever seen in terms of 3 things:
1. The best inspiration to tennis fans both so called tennis experts
and general public. I've never seen a player who inspires everybody
this much.
2. The extent of domination. I don't think I've ever seen a player who
dominates the tour this much for 3 years. I've seen couple of players
dominated "longer" but never seen this high degree of domination.
3. Talents displayed. He definitely demonstrates the most number of
skill/talent sets I've ever seen from a single player. Not just tennis skills.
His court vision, body awareness, game intelligence. He's got that intangibles too.
He is probably the most talented tennis player I've ever seen. But that
does not always make the greatest. It just too early to call his position
in "history". I would rather wait until he retires.
1. The best inspiration to tennis fans both so called tennis experts
and general public. I've never seen a player who inspires everybody
this much.
2. The extent of domination. I don't think I've ever seen a player who
dominates the tour this much for 3 years. I've seen couple of players
dominated "longer" but never seen this high degree of domination.
3. Talents displayed. He definitely demonstrates the most number of
skill/talent sets I've ever seen from a single player. Not just tennis skills.
His court vision, body awareness, game intelligence. He's got that intangibles too.
He is probably the most talented tennis player I've ever seen. But that
does not always make the greatest. It just too early to call his position
in "history". I would rather wait until he retires.
Baghdatis72
Hall of Fame
He is the greatest of this time though 
GOTT
GOTT
Tennis_Goodness
Semi-Pro
Probablly one of the top 5, he's not the greatest yet.
When his career is over I think he will be number 1 bar none!
When his career is over I think he will be number 1 bar none!
anointedone
Banned
I voted outside the top 15 since he isnt even in the top 150 all time, so how can he be top 15 all time. He is the best right now, which shows how much the field sucks.
prosealster
Professional
Agree with superman1.. he is the BEST of all time.... but not the GREATEST yet
breakfast_of_champions
Banned
they outta create a seperate area for these types of threads.
psamp14
Hall of Fame
breakfast_of_champions said:
yeah, and a separate sub-thread for federer-sampras threads..
i'd put him in the top 5 right now, behind sampras, borg, and laver in terms of the open era,
he'll fit his way into the top 3 in a few months and then as for #1...could happen in 2008, or little later
Amone said:
Amone,
I put Rosewall in that spot for a couple of reasons but work ethic most certainly wasn't one of them. You just don't win 8 majors in singles, 7 doubles titles and the professional 'World Championship'*** 6 times (runner-up 4 times) by virtue of hard work alone. It takes a rare talent to achieve those kind of results, especially when you consider that Rosewall's game was never suited to fast grass or fast indoor conditions - which is what he played almost all of his tennis on.
Main reason for rating him so high is that he won 4 majors before the age of 22, lost the next 12 years - his prime years, when he was the best in the world- but came back to win another 4 majors when the pros were re-admitted to the major tournaments. If he had been allowed to compete for those 12 years it is almost certain he would have won more than 6 majors and that he would have won Wimbledon at least once. The likelihood is that, given his rate of success, he would have won at least 1 major in each of those years.
Have a look at my note on the professional World Championships, decide how much credence you should give to those events and whether, when we talk of the 'greatest ever' we should include them in the resumes of those players banned during their pro careers. My personal belief is that we should. We know they were the best players of their day but not allowed to accumulate the majors so this is a way of redressing the balance. If we did that then:
Gonzales won 12 times, on top of his 2 majors which would give him 14 wins. Rosewall won 16 times, on top of his 8 majors giving him 24 overall. Laver won 10 times on top of his 11 majors (2 Grand Slams) giving him 21 overall. Note that there were only 3 'Championship' events that those players could have won. Add another one on and their totals would have been higher.
Sampras never won the Grand Slam but people argue his position based on the number of majors he won. If you allow for the additions I've mentioned it helps you put 14 into some perspective. Great, certainly. Best of all time, not by a long shot. Same with Federer. Could very well be the most talented player of all time (I think Nastase, Hoad and Laver would be in that argument) but without at least 1 Grand Slam win he won't rate above Rosewall and Gonzales.
***There were 3 key professional events labelled championship tournaments for the professionals to play in. The most prestigious and recognised to be the unofficial world championship was the London Indoor Professional Championship at Wembley. The other two were the United States Professional Championship and the French Professional Championship***
*** Rosewall won the Wembley event 6 times (4 times in a row, 1960-1963) and was runner-up on 4 occasions. He won the French Championship 8 times (7 times in a row, 1960-1966). He won the US event twice (1963, 1965) and was runner-up once. Those are the statistics of an enormous talent, not just someone with a great work ethic.
NewBallsPlease
New User
Why don't we save the GOAT until he's done. There are still a of records to be broken and tournaments to be won. Will he achieved them? Time will tell.
DashaandSafin
Hall of Fame
Oh wow. I've never seen a thread like this before!
Similar threads
