Federer is simply the best ever...when you consider all things.

McEnborg

Semi-Pro
Watching him last night was just the latest thing that has me amazed at this guy. Fools point out that he's only won 1 major in the last 5 years or whatever. Yet, since winning the 2010 Australian Open, Fed has been in 18 quarterfinals or better (6 quarters, 8 semis, 3 finals and 1 win).

After Rafa won the 2014 French, I actually thought it was close between them as GOAT...but as I've seen Fed continue to win tournaments, get to semis or finals of majors and the WATCH the way he can still play...like last night's brilliant demolition of Keven Anderson, it hit me overwhelmingly that this guy is the greatest tennis player we may ever see.

The ONLY reason he doesn't have 25 major victories, instead of 17, is because he went up agains the GREATEST clay court player of all time...by far. He lost 4 finals at Roland Garros to the greatest clay court player ever. And now, he's lost several times to Novak (in his prime and 6 years younger)...who is on his way to going down as the 3rd, or possible 2nd greatest player of all time. And even then, Fed still beats him here and there and takes him often to the limit.

When you consider Roger's durability and how well he's playing in his 30's...and how unbelievably consistent he's been...and how he's actually IMPROVED areas of his game at 31, 32 33...it's freaking phenomenol. To consider: he's gotten to at least 44 quarterfinals of majors, at least 36 semis of majors and has been in TWENTY SIX major finals, winning 17. On top of that, he's been to 12 semi finals or better (winning 6) of the year end event. He's won 86% of his matches in majors, has won 86 tournaments and has played, at many times, the greatest tennis we'll ever see.

I've come around. He's the best ever and it is a privilege to watch him still, after 14 years, play at an amazingly elite level. More pure physical talent that any player to EVER play the game...the most fun to watch ever when he's playing well...and an amazingly durable athlete...more durable than even Connors and Lendl, in terms of playing at an elite level LONGER. The guy is the best ever, there's no question about it. No more debates are necessary.
 
Last edited:

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
The stats are there and they still need to be for Federer to be in the "GOAT" discussion if you believe in such a thing, but for me it's always been the way he went about it. Nadal for example has made my jaw drop plenty of times, but he's never quite impressed me the way Federer does/did. The fluid style and the smoothness. He really has every shot in the book. I realize it's different for everybody, but that's just my opinion. And the longevity. I could go on for a while, but this has been done to death so I won't.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Fed always looks good against lower players or those with low mental strength. When faced with a strong-era player like Djokovic or Nadal, he goes down quick.
 

vanioMan

Legend
Well, I haven't watched tennis pre 2000, let alone in the Laver years, so I don't know just how great the guys from the past were, but I've always considered Roger the greatest ever myself. It's rather amusing when Nadal or Sampras fans try to diminish his achievements with things like H2H and what not. I'm a Nadal fan, but even at 17 Slams he will not be greater than Roger. End of.
 

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
Well, I haven't watched tennis pre 2000, let alone in the Laver years, so I don't know just how great the guys from the past were, but I've always considered Roger the greatest ever myself. It's rather amusing when Nadal or Sampras fans try to diminish his achievements with things like H2H and what not. I'm a Nadal fan, but even at 17 Slams he will not be greater than Roger. End of.
Well you can't fault Sampras fans for having their say because they/we can say a couple of things about Federer's contemporaries that will ring true to many. But let us not go there ;)
 

Chicharito

Hall of Fame
His modern transformation in terms of style and tactics is just one of those intangibles that adds to his greatness, the net rushing the S and V. It just makes him extra special. I don't think other players could do this.

Can't put him ahead of Laver definitively but yeah you can't say anyone from modern times could possibly be greater than Fed.

Winning a 8th Wimbledon a month shy of his 34th Birthday would have been ridiculously epic.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Yet again Nadal fails to meet a date with Federer on hardcourts by losing to Lopez, so I'm not expecting the H2H to change given Nadal's decline.
 

dante1976

Rookie
Hats down for that kind of performance at the age 34.
I'm not a fed fanatic but i respect the guy, not much for his achievements but for his longevity and pure love for the game itself ;)
Bottom line... when you want to, for example, show your kids how to play tennis... you show them Roger... simple as that ;)
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Well you can't fault Sampras fans for having their say because they/we can say a couple of things about Federer's contemporaries that will ring true to many. But let us not go there ;)

And there are plenty of similar arguments that can be levied in the other direction. But yes let's not go there ;)
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
Yet again Nadal fails to meet a date with Federer on hardcourts by losing to Lopez, so I'm not expecting the H2H to change given Nadal's decline.

I'm so sorry for your loss.

S40-4531_200x225.jpg
 
D

Deleted member 733170

Guest
I don't think people generally give enough credit to how his extraordinary 'autumn career' resurgence pretty much cements his legacy.

Yeah he may not have won so many slams in the last few years but as OP says he is putting in more than a good show.

On the eye test alone there should surely never have been any debate. Credit though to certain noisy Nadal fans who kept the debate alive for as long as they did by use of inventive reference to arcane tennis statistics :D
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
When you think about it, Nadal's done well to even make this a true debate considering that he was down 16 to 6 in slams at one point. To me, aside from the fan bias of mine with Federer's style, it's the balance of Federer's resume statistically that makes him the greatest. Nadal only has one way through the door and that's 17-18 slams combined with the H2H, but even if he does that he will never beat Federer's slam distribution, WTF titles or weeks/years at #1.

That's why I think that if Djokovic can get within say a slam, maybe 2 of Nadal (preferably with a career slam), he will have a case to be placed ahead of him on the balance of his resume. It's the same scenario here with Federer. The ability to truly dominate every surface except clay (where he's still very very good) is what makes him the greatest IMO.
 

NGM

Hall of Fame
Federer can make Connors's super longevity looks average. He can play way pass 37 years old considering how good he is at 34.

After 2012 I am convinced that Federer is the greatest player of Open era with no contest. I tend to agree that he is the front runner of GOAT contenders for all times. It is hard to compare eras but how many guys played tennis for livings 70 years ago? 1000 - 2000 maybe? There are millions competitors these days coming from all over the world which means it's 100 times harder to be the best of this era.
 
Top