FanNation - The Republic of Sport

There's no doubt in my mind Roger Federer is the greatest player. The other spots are debatable, but #1 no longer is. Long live the King.

Well, I would only say GOAT for now. I am long time Federer fan but you have to wonder: if Nadal keeps going like this and becomes consistent across all surfaces, as he showed last year....he could be the next candidate for GOAT very soon.
There is one thing though, which should be noted: Federer during his reign took such good care of his body that he never had any major injuries and was able to maintain his game at the highest level for an amazing amount of time. 20 consecutive semi final appearances!!?? Ana amazing feat by itself....
Rafa has shown some problem already with injuries and he will have to contend for a long time with Murray, Djokovic, Monfils, Tsonga - possibly even Soderling. and of course Federer, while he graces us with his presence on the courts.
But for now, my vote is a Yes: Greatest of all Time.

This was amazing...to see roger finally lifting that trophy...but what is more amazing for me is that crazy record of 19 or 20 semis in a row...For me , that is almost enough to make someone a goat...What is Nadals record...?...3 or something? Nadal might eventually get there but for now, Roger is for sure the GOAT...

He's GOAT. That status is always be "for now", cause the next young talent will always be lurking to take that title away. When Sampras retired, there were doubts whether anyone can win 14 Grand Slams. Until Rafa or any other matches his amazing feats, Federer will be the GOAT.

I am a huge Roger Federer fan and am so thrilled that he won today, but in GOAT discussions I'm surprised the name of Ivan Lendl is not even mentioned. It is true that at 8-11, he has a losing record in Grand Slam finals, but he still won 8 titles, 2 Australian, 3 French, and 3 US Open, as well as a record 5 season ending tour finals. Many have argued that to be truly considered for GOAT that a player needs to win on all surfaces, something Sampras, nor Lendl accomplished. However, it's also said that only truly complete players have the ability to win on clay, that clay exposes a players weakness and only those with a truly rounded game can win...Lendl won 3 French Opens along with 25 other titles on clay...Sampras made it once to the semi-finals.

Further, the number of titles he won is staggering. Over his career, he won 144 titles, 94 of which are recognized by the ATP (Sampras won only 64 titles; Federer 59). Of those 94 titles, 31 were on hard, 28 on clay, and 33 on carpet, as well as 2 grass titles. While grass proved to be his achellies heel, never winning at Wimbledon, it wasn't that he wasn't competitive on the surface. He made it to 5 Wimbledon semi-finals and two finals, clearing proving he could win on the surface, but just not able to in the finals, similar to Roger Federer at the French the past four years.

Lendl also accummulated a staggering 1071-239 match record, also unrivaled in men's professional tennis. Compare that to Sampras' 762-222 record, or Federer's 643-155 record and it's painfully obvious how consistent and dominant he was over his career. Lendl is also the only player in the history of men's tennis to have a 90% or better winning percentage in four different years (Federer managed that 2 consecutive years).

So, again, not to take away from Federer's accomplishments, he's clearly the most consistent, well-rounded player of his generation, but I've never understood why Lendl isn't considered as a possible GOAT as well.

What happens if Rafa wins the US open this year? He is only 23 and he has a shot at winning all four slams (and an olympics title) already. Federer has dominated everyone other than Nadal but Nadal has dominated everyone. I would have given my vote to Roger if he had beaten Rafa in Paris but for now i think i will abstain from voting till Roger and Rafa's careers are over. Until then i hope we can enjoy these 2 greatest competitors of all time going at each other.

French in hand, Fed must get his due as greatest ever. But to me, it's a statistical argument that will always leave room for debate. There is no question his 20 consecutive trips to Grand Slam semis is jaw dropping -- more so than the 14 major titles for my money -- but I will always wonder about the level of competition Federer had. In fact, I think his 20 straight semi trips at the Slams is a bit of an indictment of his competition. And as I wrote here last week, for much of Federer's career, Andy Roddick was Federer's best competition. Roddick, with or without Federer's presence, would never have become an all-time great. He can't back up his serve at net, lacks court quickness and great weaponry from the baseline. He clearly is sub-standard to Jim Courier, a player with four majors who no one gives a second thought to today. Federer's victims in major championships are Mark Philippoussis; the maddening Marat Safin, who years later extracted revenge by beating Fed in an Aussie final; the aforementioned Roddick three times, hustling Lleyton Hewitt; a 35-year-old Andre Aggassi; Marcos Baghdattis; Rafael Nadal at Wimbledon once, at the Australian once; Fernando Gonzalez; Novak Djokavic; Andy Murray and, of course, Robin Soderling. While all great champs get some virtual title-match walkovers, based on the level of opponent, I think few have benefited as Federer has in this regard, which makes his clear path to this year's French quite appropriate. Of Fed's major victims, only Nadal and Hewitt have more than one Slam, and clearly only Nadal is (or one day figures to one day be) in the discussion for GOAT. Sampras, who I think is the best fast-court player ever, though admittedly impossible to call the overall greatest because of his French flops, twice beat Pioline in major finals, once beat Todd Martin and once beat Carlos Moya. So as I noted, all champs get to pad their results against some chumps. And yes, Sampras certainly benefited from Agassi going on walkabout, as the Aussies like to say, for part of his career, and Courier faded fairly early on, too. But I personally think much of the latter was because Agassi and Courier felt helpless vs. Sampras during portions of their careers. Meanwhile, Becker still had the capacity to win a couple more Wimbledons had Sampras not stopped him, and certainly Ivanisevic, who finally got his Wimbledon, would have won several without Sampras standing in the way. So while I give Fed his props, I will always have my own doubts about how he would have faired with Nadal, Sampras and Agassi having been there during his prime, instead of the likes of Roddick and Safin (who had unbelievable talent without the heart to match).

Are you kidding me???? Laver won the GS in 62 (yea, GS NOT a career GS), then again in 69! Why no slams in the middle... he wasn't allowed to play because he turned pro in 63! Any questions?

To be the greatest player of all time one needs 3 things, slam wins (all the slams, not just the number), tournament wins and staying power over the years. Federer has already achieved those things. He seems to keep himself in great physical and mental shape as the years go by. It is one thing to win, but it is very telling when those younger guys start coming after you and you are now in the position of having everything to lose. Roger has shown that he is up to the task. He seems to still have the fire to keep on going, even with a wife and a child on the way. It would not surprise me if he wins more slams. Right now I would say he is one of the two or three greatest. Saying he is the greatest is pretty subjective. He is like Sampras, Laver and Borg also in that you always seem to be pulling for them because they have not only earned respect as players but as people.

Coach Craig, I think Rocket Rod is too far removed for most posters. But that's not why I question him as GOAT; it's because Laver, himself, has said he and other top players of his era had free runs to the 4th round or even quarters of most majors. So it would appear he had even less competition than I believe Federer had. Moreover, he played 3 of his 4 majors each year on grass. If Sampras got to play 3 of 4 on grass, then perhaps he could have put it altogether at least once at the French. He did reach a couple of quarters and a semi there, and he won as Italian Open on clay, a Master series event at the time. He even won two singles matches to lead the US over Kafelnokov's Russia team on clay in a Davis Cup tie in Moscow.

Harp-C, great points about the surfaces having changed thru the years, but also include the evolution of the equipment and balls. Factor in the improvements in travel between tourney while we're at it! Head to head, Laver win's because if Roger has a weakness, it's left handers that give him the most problems (hence Nadal's advantage).

QUOTE(#11):

Originally posted 03:10 PM ET  06.07 by Coach Craig

Harp-C, great points about the surfaces having changed thru the years, but also include the evolution of the equipment and balls. Factor in the improvements in travel between tourney while we're at it! Head to head, Laver win's because if Roger has a weakness, it's left handers that give him the most problems (hence Nadal's advantage).

Erm.... Other than Rafa, which left-hander actually gave Roger trouble before?
I fail to see your logic behind the "lefty is the bane of Federer" argument.

Heard a BBC guy make the argument before the semi's match, so I thought I'd run with it! But, other than Nadal, are their any lefties out there today?

Here's what I've learned over the past year: there truly is no way to evaluate. I've followed tennis for 25 years. I've loved Lendl and Chang; I admire and love watching Federer and Nadal; I grew to appreciate Agassi, Connors, and McEnroe; and always had a grudging respect for Pete Sampras.

At their very best in their prime, on a hardcourt surface...
I think Federer would be a hard matchup for Pete Sampras. Rafael Nadal at his best is a very hard matchup for Roger Federer. Here's the kicker: I think Pete Sampras would actually be a hard matchup for Nadal. So you figure it out...

How do you evaluate? Based on grand slam titles? That won't account for poor competition, but on that criteria it looks like it will be Federer once he wins one more.
Based on how the player does on all 4 surfaces? Then it's between Laver and Federer.
Based on how the player does against the chief rivals of his era? Then it's between Sampras and Laver.
Based on consistency of play in the Grand Slams? Then it's easily (EASILY!!) Federer.

I think Sampras has the greatest first and second serve the game has ever since, thus his main strength. I think Nadal is the greatest competitor the men's game has ever seen, and while he may never be in the GOAT consideration, I wouldn't EVER bet against him in one match against any of the GOAT candidates. I think Federer is the greatest talent the game has ever seen.

I agree with Harp-C's analysis. I would add that reviewing the Fed's accomplishment at this latest French, he was an astounding 33-2 vs the field of players he beat. In fact, Haas was the only player to have recorded career wins against Federer and he had not done this since the Aus Open in 2002. 7 YEARS!!! Furthermore, none of these players have had steller careers and it's highly improbably that any of them (with the exception of the youthful Del Potro) that any of them will be rememberd even 5 years after they've retired. That said, Federer is probably the most consistent player of the Open Era. And he's undoubtedly the most accomplished. However, best seems to suggest who would one place their money on assuming both players (Federer against whomever) playing at their best? Right now, assuming both players at their best, Sampras wins all of their matches on every surface except clay. Playing their best, Federer beats Nadal on a hard court, probably loses to him on grass and definitely loses to him on clay. As usual, tennis is about match ups. I guess at the end of the day, the GOAT/BOAT conversation is really rather inane. Who beats who when is about matchups. Does Federer beat Agassi at both of their best? I don't think so. Too much pressure from Agassi and too much pace to Roger's backhand. Same with Sampras. But Federer did not have to play alongside more than one (Rafa) real Hall of Famer (even taking into account how easy it is to get into the HOF) and that's the real diff between he and Sampras.

Coach Craig is right. Rod Laver is the greatest of all time and there is no question about it. Given his bookend year grand slams in 62 and 69, it is hard to imagine that he would not have averaged two a year from 63 to 68. If so, that would have given him 23 for his career. That's a Ruthian number. Everyone else pales by comparison. And while 3 of his 4 tourneys were on grass, the 4th was at Roland Garros, where all of the other pretenders have problems. Sampras could never win there; Federer could only win there in his 4th try, when his nemesis had bowed out early. Laver, like them a grass court demon, won in two consecutive tries as part of two consecutive slams. Please! If Federer had the clas everyone attributes to him, he'd conced his career, great as it has been, is not yet in the same universe as Laver's.

I would have to respectfully disagree with Harp-C's analysis due to it being built on mostly logically fallacious assumptions. The current competition, which has been noted by various tennis commentators already, is a lot fitter and stronger than ever before due to the evolution of training regimes and athletic demands. Improved racket technology also allows less talented players to hit outright winners against even the best players if they made even a slight mistake. 20 consecutive Slam semis by Federer is more a testament to his consistent greatness than anything (Sampras and every other candidate for GOAT regularly lost to shoddier competition in their respective eras before even getting into the semis), even though you constructed your argument based on his the perceived talent of his competition during the Slam finals only. Back to my point first about the 20 consecutive semifinals, I would like to point out that men's tennis is flush with talents like Tsonga, Murray, Djokovic, Monfil, Gonzalez, Haas, Roddick, and most noticeably, Nadal. If you ever watched them play, you can see how truly strong their individual talents are, but the one thing missing with most of them asides from Nadal is consistency against the field. When pitted against one another, all it takes is for the opponent to play an amazing game, or for them to play subpar for them to lose. Federer, consistently faces opponents on their game and still beats them while he's playing subpar tennis. Consistency does entail greatness, but means nothing if they never achieve the top, something Federer has also consistently done. How many Grand Slam finals has he reached in the last 5 years, and how many has he won? I'm roughly recalling something like 17 reached and 13 won? Not as 'impressive' as the 20 semis reached CONSECUTIVELY, but impressive nonetheless.

And finally in regards to Harp-C's comment about Federer's competition in the final, particularly that "Of Fed's major victims, only Nadal and Hewitt have more than one Slam, and clearly only Nadal is (or one day figures to one day be) in the discussion for GOAT.", their lack of Slams can be attributed to Federer's dominance. How many Slams would other players have were it not for Roger Federer? And you were incorrect in that statement as well, because Marat Safin won both the Aussie Open in an epic 5-setter where he won FEWER total points against Federer and the U.S. Open, dominating an in form and still in his prime Pete Sampras. In fact, Sampras noted after his loss that Safin would be the one dominating tennis in the years to come. Federer's Aussie Open win was against Safin in his prime, and Safin's legacy of never being able to achieve the heights that his talents allowed was probably because of the ascension of Federer. Secondly, the "hustling Lleyton Hewitt" beat Federer early on in their careers but has been thoroughly dominated ever since, even during his perceived prime. Btw, his hustle gave Sampras fits and after Sampras lost to the soon to be #1 player in the world, he predicted that Hewitt would go on to win quite a few Slams like he did for Safin. And last but not least, he played a 35 year old Agassi who was fit as an ox and battled through the men's draw to face Federer, playing for a set and a half possibly the best tennis of his life. And in his own words, he felt that Federer was more talented and more a complete player than his former rival Sampras, noting that while he might lose 7-6, 7-5, 7-5 against Sampras, he could lose 6-1, 6-1, 6-0 against Federer. And if you honestly felt that Sampras' competition 'quit' on him while he was dominating the tour, then it's a testament to Federer's current competitors who continually try to improve their game just so they could take that one Slam off Federer.

@#6 - The problem with the Nadal/Federer comparisons is that A. Nadal doesn't dominate everyone. There are many players that have winning records vs him. He has not dominated at any slam not called the French. He has not had the longevity at #1 yet.

I do not believe Nadal can keep playing the way he plays for more than a few more years, so I think Federer and Nadal will end their careers around the same time. ( I think Federer will focus on the olympics in 2012 then have 2013 be his last year ). We'll see if Nadal can keep up his play, if he can consistently win and get deep into the Aussie, US, and Wimbledon. If he can, then yea maybe he can get 15+ titles and own all his competitors deep into his career. Or maybe when he's 27 there will be a new 23 year old dominating him. They're not exactly at the same stages in their careers.

*Shrug* It's wonderful tennis and wonderful rivalry either way. I think the game is as deep as it has been since the 80's with djokovic, del potro, murray, nadal, federer, monfis and a slew of other really talented players.

The problem I see with anointing Federer as the "greatest of all time" is that he has played in an era where the competition is so thin...it is just now starting to pick up with young stars like Djokovic, Soderling, etc. But these youngsters are too inconsistent at this point in their careers to really put up much of a challenge against an established superstar like Federer. Federer is a hall-of-famer, no question, but the only other hall-of-famer that he's really had to contend with in the prime of their career is Nadal, and he has not done too well with him. Sampras on the other hand faced down numerous hall-of-famers during his run in the midst of one of tennis' "Golden Eras", and had some epic battles with them (e.g. Agassi). Had he faced the same caliber field as Federer, he would have amassed far more GS titles. I just can't find myself willing to put Federer at the top of the list right now - unfortunately, he has just played in an era that is too weak to ever put him in a position where we would ever know how great he really is. The only way to gauge it is how he's played against the only other hall-of-famer in his era - Nadal. Nadal of late has dominated him, and had him in tears at the U.S. Open last year. So until I see Federer begin to dominate Nadal, and beat him on clay, I'd have to say this talk of "greatest of all time" is just a waste of breath.