Roger Federer is not the Greatest of All Time.

[JeMar]

Roger Federer is not the Greatest of All Time.

He isn't... the game is too different and there are too many variables when you stack him up against greats like Laver.

He is, however, the most accomplished player of all time, at least for the moment. I wish that all these threads about a GOAT and whatnot would get the terminology right. There will never be a greatest of all time because the discussion is far too subjective. We can, however, compare numbers.

 

[TennisDawg]

Roger Federer is not the Greatest of All Time.

He isn't... the game is too different and there are too many variables when you stack him up against greats like Laver.

He is, however, the most accomplished player of all time, at least for the moment. I wish that all these threads about a GOAT and whatnot would get the terminology right. There will never be a greatest of all time because the discussion is far too subjective. We can, however, compare numbers.

That's why we look at numbers and surfaces and the level of competition because it's the only way to avoid being subjective. Federer has some very stiff, mean, talented, comeptition to deal with. Much much tougher than Laver's era and Fed has won all 4 Slams. Something the great Sampras could not do. I admire Rod Laver, but I really believe the players are far more talented nowadays then Laver's era, just take a look at some of the ole film clips. You can't honestly say that Laver would have been in the top 10 even. So many players can blow Laver off the court, it would be embarrasing. I agree that Federer is the GOAT for right now, but his reign may be for a long time.

 

[geese_com]

Very hard to compare over generations but his resume is one of the best ever.

 

[TennisDawg]

Very hard to compare over generations but his resume is one of the best ever.

What is hard about comparing to previous generations?? Not being disrespectful, but do you think Laver and his generation could really compete against this generation of players. Each generation has gotten better and better, it's like comparing the old NBA set shot shooters against todays slam dunk agile 7 foot athletes.

Take a look at 5 foot 7 Rod Laver beating guys like 5 foot 6 Ken Rosewall with his one handed slice back hand. Even John Newcombe with his serve volley game would have gotten blown off the court. Look at the old clips of Borg on clay it's like pitty pat tennis compared to todays game. I remember when it was rare for a player to hit aces on clay now it's almost like watching a hard court match. Even Rod the Rocket Laver would honestly admit that todays players would dominate previous genertions. Federer is the GOAT and will be for quite a few years until some other phenomen comes along.

 

[TennisandMusic]

What is hard about comparing to previous generations?? Not being disrespectful, but do you think Laver and his generation could really compete against this generation of players. Each generation has gotten better and better, it's like comparing the old NBA set shot shooters against todays slam dunk agile 7 foot athletes.

Take a look at 5 foot 7 Rod Laver beating guys like 5 foot 6 Ken Rosewall with his one handed slice back hand. Even John Newcombe with his serve volley game would have gotten blown off the court. Look at the old clips of Borg on clay it's like pitty pat tennis compared to todays game. I remember when it was rare for a player to hit aces on clay now it's almost like watching a hard court match. Even Rod the Rocket Laver would honestly admit that todays players would dominate previous genertions. Federer is the GOAT and will be for quite a few years until some other phenomen comes along.

You do realize the effect equipment has had on the game right?

Guys today are not better than guys 20 and 30 years ago. Get real.

 

[Dimitrov_Fan]

very diplomatic approach from the op

most accomplished is very true but greatest is a subjective term that is target for many arguments but most accomplished is basically bullet-proof.

 

[R_Federer]

He has the most slams, a career slam, and the most weeks at #1...what more do you want for him to be GOAT? Let me know, thanks.

 

[Turning Pro]

He certainly had the weakest field of competition with the only genuine threats and of reasonable talent were of Safin and Hewitt. Roddick was a flame who could only shine at Wimby 04. It was only until pre-prime Nadal came along, where he was challenged.

 

[TennisDawg]

You do realize the effect equipment has had on the game right?

Guys today are not better than guys 20 and 30 years ago. Get real.

Yes, I do realize the equipment is better. So you have more powerful racquets with better technology. When you combine more powerful racquets with bigger, stronger athletes you have today's Tennis game. The racquets are better, but so are the tennis athletes. I think you're in denial.

 

[TennisFan481]

What is hard about comparing to previous generations?? Not being disrespectful, but do you think Laver and his generation could really compete against this generation of players. Each generation has gotten better and better, it's like comparing the old NBA set shot shooters against todays slam dunk agile 7 foot athletes.

Take a look at 5 foot 7 Rod Laver beating guys like 5 foot 6 Ken Rosewall with his one handed slice back hand. Even John Newcombe with his serve volley game would have gotten blown off the court. Look at the old clips of Borg on clay it's like pitty pat tennis compared to todays game. I remember when it was rare for a player to hit aces on clay now it's almost like watching a hard court match. Even Rod the Rocket Laver would honestly admit that todays players would dominate previous genertions. Federer is the GOAT and will be for quite a few years until some other phenomen comes along.

And do you think those guys would've been so small if they'd grown up in the current era of nutrition + steroids + high-end modern physical training?

As time goes on, people have gotten bigger, stronger, and faster. Had these guys been born much later, they would've benefited from it the same way Federer has.

It's not a comparison you can make without an excessive amount of conjecture.

 

[TennisDawg]

And do you think those guys would've been so small if they'd grown up in the current era of nutrition + steroids + high-end modern physical training?

As time goes on, people have gotten bigger, stronger, and faster. Had these guys been born much later, they would've benefited from it the same way Federer has.

It's not a comparison you can make without an excessive amount of conjecture.

Oh please you're post seemed to be a reasonable argument, until you "gotta bring up roids". Federer is on steroids, now. Just accept that he is a classy, stylish champion, a true gentleman that just played the greatest tournament ever and surpassed all other's before him. You really shouldn't make those types of claims about steroid use, you have no proof that Federer is on steroids and the rest of the players (xcept for a few non significant isolated cases) also and that's dishonest!!

 

[emerckx53]

And do you think those guys would've been so small if they'd grown up in the current era of nutrition + steroids + high-end modern physical training?

As time goes on, people have gotten bigger, stronger, and faster. Had these guys been born much later, they would've benefited from it the same way Federer has.

It's not a comparison you can make without an excessive amount of conjecture.

Well said...cannot compare era's sorry just can't. You better believe Laver in his prime with all things being equal...nutrition, equipment etc....would have given the Fed all he wanted.

 

[ambro]

What is hard about comparing to previous generations?? Not being disrespectful, but do you think Laver and his generation could really compete against this generation of players. Each generation has gotten better and better, it's like comparing the old NBA set shot shooters against todays slam dunk agile 7 foot athletes.

Take a look at 5 foot 7 Rod Laver beating guys like 5 foot 6 Ken Rosewall with his one handed slice back hand. Even John Newcombe with his serve volley game would have gotten blown off the court. Look at the old clips of Borg on clay it's like pitty pat tennis compared to todays game. I remember when it was rare for a player to hit aces on clay now it's almost like watching a hard court match. Even Rod the Rocket Laver would honestly admit that todays players would dominate previous genertions. Federer is the GOAT and will be for quite a few years until some other phenomen comes along.

IThank you for this post. It's nice to see someone who is not delusional about the past.

 

[ambro]

Well said...cannot compare era's sorry just can't. You better believe Laver in his prime with all things being equal...nutrition, equipment etc....would have given the Fed all he wanted.

Fed would wipe the floor with him. Nutrition is not that different. The training and equipment is, though, but that is no fault of theirs. If they had been brought up in the same era, they may not even have been noteworthy. Maybe this era's style of play would not be their fit, and they wouldn't even be top 100. Who knows. But to say that Laver would even put up a fight against Fed, just because of his results in his era, even with modern equipment, is ridiculous.

 

[matchmaker]

To the OP,

I agree with you and I am Fed (pun intended) up with the whole GOAT debate.

Surely Federer is one of the most accomplished players overall of all time, but there are players who were better than him at specific things.

He does not have the best BH of all time, he does not have the best serve of all time, he does not have the best volleys of all time, but he does have a general package that shields his weaknesses rather well and emphasizes his strengths.

Funny how one year ago, all his deficiencies were brutally exposed, and now it is as if nothing was ever wrong with him.

Truth is, he has improved certain things (especially his dropshots) surfing on a wave of confidence, but there are certainly still flaws in his game (BH high up).

 

[psYcon]

What is hard about comparing to previous generations?? Not being disrespectful, but do you think Laver and his generation could really compete against this generation of players. Each generation has gotten better and better, it's like comparing the old NBA set shot shooters against todays slam dunk agile 7 foot athletes.

Take a look at 5 foot 7 Rod Laver beating guys like 5 foot 6 Ken Rosewall with his one handed slice back hand. Even John Newcombe with his serve volley game would have gotten blown off the court. Look at the old clips of Borg on clay it's like pitty pat tennis compared to todays game. I remember when it was rare for a player to hit aces on clay now it's almost like watching a hard court match. Even Rod the Rocket Laver would honestly admit that todays players would dominate previous genertions. Federer is the GOAT and will be for quite a few years until some other phenomen comes along.

totally agree. In fact I'm willing to bet that even a strong 5.5 player of today would be able to take on Laver and players from older generations. Tennis in today's world has evolved amongst players, they have access to strong coaching, better health choices, improved fitness routines, in-depth analysis of what to play, when to play and how to play.

 

[drakulie]

You do realize the effect equipment has had on the game right?

Yeah, it doesn't allow players today to hit 163 mph serves like Tilden, or frequently hit ground strokes over 100 mph like laver, gonzalez, etc. :roll:

Guys today are not better than guys 20 and 30 years ago. Get real.

Yes, they really are.

 

[TennisDawg]

Well said...cannot compare era's sorry just can't. You better believe Laver in his prime with all things being equal...nutrition, equipment etc....would have given the Fed all he wanted.

Hats off to Laver, but frankly he is fortunate to have competed in an early time. Laver would just be another player hopefully making a decent living at tennis, but that's about it, he would have been a non-factor.

 

[JeMar]

That's why we look at numbers and surfaces and the level of competition because it's the only way to avoid being subjective. Federer has some very stiff, mean, talented, comeptition to deal with. Much much tougher than Laver's era and Fed has won all 4 Slams. Something the great Sampras could not do. I admire Rod Laver, but I really believe the players are far more talented nowadays then Laver's era, just take a look at some of the ole film clips. You can't honestly say that Laver would have been in the top 10 even. So many players can blow Laver off the court, it would be embarrasing. I agree that Federer is the GOAT for right now, but his reign may be for a long time.

I see your point, but even here you're being extremely subjective. Who's to say that if someone like Laver had come along right now that he would not have adapted to the current men's game? Even more, the average height of the men's game has increased steadily over the years, so who's to say that if someone of Laver's talent had come along today that he would have been five feet eight inches?

Looking at how they played is also not very much help, as even the most inside of tennis insiders will tell you that what the players are able to do today is due to superior training science and better technology. If you give tools that important to someone of the past, they would've been able to achieve the near super-human feats that players today perform every day.

We cannot compare the Federer to today to the Laver of the 1960s because they train and compete with vastly different tools. What we need to look at is what they accomplished with what they were given.

You cannot possibly understand how psyched I was when Federer won today, but all this GOAT talk is getting somewhat ridiculous. Yes, Federer is certainly the best tennis player I've ever seen weild a tennis racquet, but Laver did so many years ago with so little is also really special. Keep in mind that I'm not saying that Laver is the GOAT over Federer, because what I'm really saying is that there can be no fair contest between the two. People will say that Federer cannot be the GOAT because of a bad H2H against Nadal or that his "career grand slam" is inferior to Laver's calendar-year grand slam, which he won twice; Laver critics will say that his calender-year slams are tainted because of the prevalence of grass during those days.

Hence, I believe it's best to just leave the comparison alone and worry about comparing athletes to their own generation. At this moment, Federer certainly stands as the best player in this generation, even though Nadal may have some say in that in the future.

 

[The tennis guy]

Well said...cannot compare era's sorry just can't. You better believe Laver in his prime with all things being equal...nutrition, equipment etc....would have given the Fed all he wanted.

You better hope Laver would grow taller with better nutrition...

 

[JeMar]

totally agree. In fact I'm willing to bet that even a strong 5.5 player of today would be able to take on Laver and players from older generations. Tennis in today's world has evolved amongst players, they have access to strong coaching, better health choices, improved fitness routines, in-depth analysis of what to play, when to play and how to play.

This is just silly.

Now, I may just be a lowly 4.0, but if a 5.5 is strong enough to be competing with someone like Laver, he's no 5.5.

 

[JeMar]

You better hope Laver would grow taller with better nutrition...

He certainly could've been taller if his parents had had better nutrition. It's not that hard of a conclusion to reach?

 

[TennisDawg]

To the OP,

I agree with you and I am Fed (pun intended) up with the whole GOAT debate.

Surely Federer is one of the most accomplished players overall of all time, but there are players who were better than him at specific things.

He does not have the best BH of all time, he does not have the best serve of all time, he does not have the best volleys of all time, but he does have a general package that shields his weaknesses rather well and emphasizes his strengths.

Funny how one year ago, all his deficiencies were brutally exposed, and now it is as if nothing was ever wrong with him.

Truth is, he has improved certain things (especially his dropshots) surfing on a wave of confidence, but there are certainly still flaws in his game (BH high up).

Okay, let's compare Federer's slice backhand to the supposed "gold standard" Kenny Rosewall slice backhand. Federer accelerates through the slice and the ball comes back with a ridiculous curve that is not defensive in the least instead it is an offensive weapon that keeps his opponent back and allows Fed to be on the agressive. Ken Rosewall hit a nice clean well-slice backhand, but it was not a weapon. And as far as a clear, pure drive Feds slice backhand looks more correct and textbook. No comparison, and also Rosewall hit only slice because he couldn't even hit a topspin backhand. Imagine that a top tennis professional today not being able to hit topspin off both sides, lights out, man!!

 

[The tennis guy]

He certainly could've been taller if his parents had had better nutrition. It's not that hard of a conclusion to reach?

Some people do, some people don't. It has a lot to do with genetic.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Roger Federer is not the Greatest of All Time.

He isn't... the game is too different and there are too many variables when you stack him up against greats like Laver.

He is, however, the most accomplished player of all time, at least for the moment. I wish that all these threads about a GOAT and whatnot would get the terminology right. There will never be a greatest of all time because the discussion is far too subjective. We can, however, compare numbers.

Brilliant JE. i've been saying the same thing for long time...

 

[Fedace]

Yeah, it doesn't allow players today to hit 163 mph serves like Tilden, or frequently hit ground strokes over 100 mph like laver, gonzalez, etc. :roll:



Yes, they really are.

Roger isn't the Greatest. He only won the French open cause Rafa was injured. Rafa's Knee gave out on him. so he lost early. So This in turn allowed Roger to win the French. so this is a FAKE win.

 

[JeMar]

Roger isn't the Greatest. He only won the French open cause Rafa was injured. Rafa's Knee gave out on him. so he lost early. So This in turn allowed Roger to win the French. so this is a FAKE win.

I dunno if you're being sarcastic or not, but Federer's win had nothing to do with Nadal. He can't control who's at the other side of the net. A win is a win is a win.

 

[okdude1992]

You do realize the effect equipment has had on the game right?

Guys today are not better than guys 20 and 30 years ago. Get real.

on the contrary they are much better athletically, stronger, more fit, and they have more variety. its no contest.

to the OP: federer is not quite the difinitive goat imo. but if he gets to around 16 or 17 slams before he retires then there will be no contest. then it will be undisputed.

 

[jjl]

Roger is the GOAT. And he's not done quite yet...

 

[okdude1992]

Roger isn't the Greatest. He only won the French open cause Rafa was injured. Rafa's Knee gave out on him. so he lost early. So This in turn allowed Roger to win the French. so this is a FAKE win.

your an idiot. no win is fake. his draw was made easier by the losses of his 3 main rivals murray, nadal, and djokovic, however there will be no asterisk next to fed's win. he deserved this French Open as the other guys were upset while he wasn't

 

[emerckx53]

Fed would wipe the floor with him. Nutrition is not that different. The training and equipment is, though, but that is no fault of theirs. If they had been brought up in the same era, they may not even have been noteworthy. Maybe this era's style of play would not be their fit, and they wouldn't even be top 100. Who knows. But to say that Laver would even put up a fight against Fed, just because of his results in his era, even with modern equipment, is ridiculous.

Sorry Ambro...just can't agree. As I said, "all things being equal" which they are not I know....but you have no idea what kind of athlete Laver was. I also said he would give Fed all he wanted not that he would beat him. It simply is not a "given" Fed would crush Laver with equal equipment. Please go do some homework and listen to what people who have seen both players have to say.

 

[ninman]

Wasn't it Tiger Woods who said that you can't ever really be the greatest ever, but if you manage to get your name in the discussion for who is the greatest ever then you've done the best you can. I think Federer has had a wonderful career, and is a wonderful player, and I think all the GOAT talk is really meaningless in a lot of ways, but we can all admire and appreciate what a talented and remarkable player he is.

 

[rogerfederer26]

Roger Federer is not the Greatest of All Time.

He isn't... the game is too different and there are too many variables when you stack him up against greats like Laver.

He is, however, the most accomplished player of all time, at least for the moment. I wish that all these threads about a GOAT and whatnot would get the terminology right. There will never be a greatest of all time because the discussion is far too subjective. We can, however, compare numbers.

Rod Laver won all four grand slams in one year in two different years--8 slams in two years, divided by 7 years that he wasn't allowed to play--having turned pro and pros being excluded from open play. Might not he have added 6 or more in those years? One must assume he was at his peak in those years.

Gonzalez, Newcombe, Rosewall, and Kramer might all have won more majors if the rules hadn't excluded them because they were playing their best.

Monica Seles won eight slams before she was taken off the pinnacle by a knife wielding madman.

Whose the greatest of all time--still and always an open question, but Federer is the best I've seen and I've seen Conners, Borg, McEnroe, Becker, Agassi, Courier, Evert, Graf, Navratilova and Sampras....did I mention Sampras.

 

[uNIVERSE mAN]

You do realize the effect equipment has had on the game right?

Guys today are not better than guys 20 and 30 years ago. Get real.

5'7" players don't win titles against 6'+ players, I don't give a **** what era or what equipment you use.

 

[Blue Drop]

Roger isn't the Greatest.

Right, you know more than Sampras, Agassi, Johnny Mac, etc., etc., etc. :roll:

 

[bruce38]

And do you think those guys would've been so small if they'd grown up in the current era of nutrition + steroids + high-end modern physical training?

As time goes on, people have gotten bigger, stronger, and faster. Had these guys been born much later, they would've benefited from it the same way Federer has.

It's not a comparison you can make without an excessive amount of conjecture.

This is not true. Height is mainly determined by genetics. It's not like guys like Laver were malnourished, they were world-class athletes. Even in today's "better nutrition" (although this is quite arguable in itself), there are many people 5'7 or less. Height is generally an advantage in most sports. Laver probably would have been squashed by some of today's top tennis players.

 

[jukka1970]

Roger Federer is not the Greatest of All Time.

He isn't... the game is too different and there are too many variables when you stack him up against greats like Laver.

He is, however, the most accomplished player of all time, at least for the moment. I wish that all these threads about a GOAT and whatnot would get the terminology right. There will never be a greatest of all time because the discussion is far too subjective. We can, however, compare numbers.

BS

I'm so sick of people not giving Federer the credit that is due. Just give it up JeMar, there's nothing you can say that is going to alter what Federer just accomplished by winning that French Open. Personally, he already had the goat status as far as I'm concerned before winning the French Open. And there are to many former pros that believe he is the GOAT.

He's made
15 out of the last 16 finals, and 20 straight semi's of slams. (Is anyone even close to this, I'd be surprised if anyone has 1/2 of those two numbers)

Of all the finals he's made at a slam, he's either won it, or lost it to Nadal.

He has 5 Wimbledons in a row, 5 US Opens in a row, and for 4 consecutive years he won them both.

I mean, there's not enough room on this board to list all the accomplishments and records that Federer has done.

 

[JeMar]

Rod Laver couldn't play the majors for 7 years.

 

[prefab]

I generally think that it is impossible to compare eras as distinct as Federer's and Laver's and to a lesser extent Federer's and Borg's... We've all witnessed how the game of tennis has evolved, not only in technology... but fitness and style of play. Players are for the most part a product of their era. If Federer played in the 60's, he'd play as a player of that era.

To another point... this business about Federer dominating a weak era is TOTAL NONSENSE. His era wasn't weak.. he (Federer) was simply superb. We all witness 2003-2007 with our own eyes. And by the way... Even McEnroe and other former pros have talked about majors in their era not really "starting" until the second week because the disparity in talent between players in the top 20 and those outside of it was considerable. This dynamic does not exist anymore. If a top player is not careful they can easily get bounced in the 1st-4th rounds. We saw it this week and we see it to some extent in every major. Every player in the top 100 can hit montrous forhands, big serves, extreme angles and are ridiculously consistent... the biggest difference is mental and what happens at 4-all against a top player on a day in day out basis.

By the way... I think Federer is the Greatest to date. In my opinion he has the fewest caveats... their have been no walk-thru first week of slams, he has 14 majors, he's won on 3 distinct surfaces, 20 consecutive semis, most consecutive weeks at number 1, 5 straight Wimbledon's, 5 straight USOpen's (are you kidding me).

Also, I only think it bolster Fed's claim to greatest to have pure and out-and-out fighter like Nadal standing in his way of total and utter domination of his era. With as much riding on history, how many players would have come back to win the USOpen after the way Fed was defeated and Wimbledon... and how many would have come back to capture the French as Fed did after another devastating loss at the AO.

 

[oberyn]

This is just silly.

Now, I may just be a lowly 4.0, but if a 5.5 is strong enough to be competing with someone like Laver, he's no 5.5.

Maybe he meant competing with Rod Laver today, as in June 7, 2009. The Rocket is going to be turning 71 in a couple of months.

 

[Rhino]

Roger isn't the Greatest. He only won the French open cause Rafa was injured. Rafa's Knee gave out on him. so he lost early. So This in turn allowed Roger to win the French. so this is a FAKE win.

 

[World Beater]

What he's done over the past five years has never, ever been done — and probably will never, ever happen again," Sampras said. "Regardless if he won there or not, he goes down as the greatest ever. This just confirms it."

On hand to give Federer the French Open trophy on Sunday was Andre Agassi, the last player to complete a career Grand Slam sweep, in 1999.

"How do you sort of argue with his numbers? It's pretty incredible," Agassi said of Federer. "A lot of people say it's better to be lucky than good. I'd rather be Roger than lucky."

For a long time, Sampras pointed to his idol Rod Laver, 11-time Grand Slam champ, as the best tennis player in history. Laver was the last man to win all four Grand Slam titles in a single season, a feat he accomplished in both 1962 and 1967.

Laver was barred from competing in those tournaments from the time he turned professional in 1963 to the start of the Open era in 1968.

Federer is now Sampras's choice for best ever.

"Now that he's won in Paris, I think it just more solidifies his place in history as the greatest player that played the game, in my opinion," said Sampras, who retired in 2002.

"I'm a huge Laver fan, and he had a few years in there where he didn't have an opportunity to win majors. But you can't compare the eras, and in this era, the competition is much more fierce than Rod's."


Pete sampras, and andre agassi disagrees with this thread.

 

[GameSampras]

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9205


Sampras wasnt saying the same thing here when asked if Fed would be GOAT if he won the RG.

So Pete is just being politically correct right now and going with the media sheep

 

[Blue Drop]

So Pete is just being politically correct right now and going with the media sheep

Whatever. Why would he bother?

It's silly that people here are now getting themselves worked up arguing against the people who really do know. You think you know better than John McEnroe? Pete Sampras, for chrissakes? Andre Agassi?

Please.

 

[jukka1970]

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9205


Sampras wasnt saying the same thing here when asked if Fed would be GOAT if he won the RG.

So Pete is just being politically correct right now and going with the media sheep

Um, well Charlie got one thing wrong right off the bat. He said that Sampras held the number 1 ranking for 286 consecutive weeks, which is a record. WRONG!!!, the record is 235 held by Federer. Was up to 3 minutes, and Sampras still hadn't corrected that error made by Charlie.

Also in the video, Sampras talks about how everything was tennis for him, and I find that to be quite sad. While Federer not only does this well, but does other things.

 

[GameSampras]

Um, well Charlie got one thing wrong right off the bat. He said that Sampras held the number 1 ranking for 286 consecutive weeks, which is a record. WRONG!!!, the record is 235 held by Federer. Was up to 3 minutes, and Sampras still hadn't corrected that error made by Charlie.

Also in the video, Sampras talks about how everything was tennis for him, and I find that to be quite sad. While Federer not only does this well, but does other things.

But the point was, Pete was definitely not echoing the same sentiments then when asked. So who knows what side Pete is really on. Im sure Sampras is very supportive of Fed as they are both buddies, but does he really think Fed is the undisputed GOAT? Does he really believe there is one? TOday he said Fed was. In this interview he said there wasnt one. So who knows.


Is there really one? Maybe a most achieved which Fed no doubt is. But the "greatest?" We will never know since we cant prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Competition, rackets, surfaces, all change

 

[dh003i]

One thing that annoys me is the lack of respect paid to pre-Open Era players other than Laver. It's like Laver is he only guy who played prior to the Open Era. While Laver is a tremendous player, one of the all-time greats for sure, I think that real experts in tennis history like Jack Kramer don't consider Laver to be the best of the pre-Open Era. A 41-year old Gonzales beat Laver at a big-money tournament right after Laver won the calendar year slam. Gonzales and Vines (at his peak) ought to be considered ahead of Laver. Along with many others. While great, Laver didn't have to play a lot of the players who were consistently beating him when he won those calendar year slams. And it wasn't because they didn't make it that far; it was because they were prohibited from playing.

 

[World Beater]

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9205


Sampras wasnt saying the same thing here when asked if Fed would be GOAT if he won the RG.

So Pete is just being politically correct right now and going with the media sheep

you can read pete's mind, eh? BTW, pete was the FIRST to say federer is the greatest ever after this recent RG win - he was not following the pack. not only that but he says it CEMENTS his status - meaning he thought it was apparent before the RG win.

what other excuses are you going to come up with?

pete doesn't have to do anything...its his decision what he puts out in the media - he could have been like some others and said "well there really is no GOAT but federer is one up there"...but he didn't...he said it unequivocally.

again these are pete's words, not mine.

 

[Morpheus]

Fed may be one of the most durable players of all time, considering how many matches he plays and how he stays injury free in an era where careers are getting shorter and shorter.

 

[Dean]

One thing that annoys me is the lack of respect paid to pre-Open Era players other than Laver. It's like Laver is he only guy who played prior to the Open Era. While Laver is a tremendous player, one of the all-time greats for sure, I think that real experts in tennis history like Jack Kramer don't consider Laver to be the best of the pre-Open Era. A 41-year old Gonzales beat Laver at a big-money tournament right after Laver won the calendar year slam. Gonzales and Vines (at his peak) ought to be considered ahead of Laver. Along with many others. While great, Laver didn't have to play a lot of the players who were consistently beating him when he won those calendar year slams. And it wasn't because they didn't make it that far; it was because they were prohibited from playing.

Of course Kramer didn't consider Laver the best. He isn't an American. Apart from early on in Lavers pro career Laver owned gonzales and for that matter rosewall and everyone else that was put in front of him.