Though he has the record and a 'career slam' I don't consider him the 'Greatest Ever'...yet. Let him finish his career first.
Tennis lovers have a constant debate about different eras...much like baseball aficionados. But with racquet, technology and fitness changing the game so much, as well as the modern era allowing professionals to play in the 'Majors' it makes it a bit difficult to compare. I think we are left with putting together the 'All Time Greats' and then just have fun debating...
Emerson, Laver, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras all dominated at times. McEnroe, Lendl and Sampras never won the French. Borg dominated the French and Wimbledon like no other player, but couldn't win the US Open on clay or hardcourt. And he only played the Australian once. Agassi won a career slam, but I don't include him in my top group. And Nadal...we will see if he can keep winning on grass and clay. I put Federer in my top 5 now, and if he keeps winning majors, he will only move up in my book!
Borg retired at 26 and Sampras at 30...so Ilookforward to watching how much gas Roger has left in the tank now that he is married and about to have a child.
He was world number one longer than any other player in history No player won more Grand Slam singles titles He won every Grand Slam tournament at least once He won a Grand Slam title on every surface: grass, clay and hardcourt
There have been many great players - no doubt, but most of these failed to win either a grand slam on clay (Sampras, Connors, McEnroe) or grass (Lendl, Wilander). Borg never won either Australian or US Open. Of those, who won all four Grand Slam tournaments, Emerson or Laver never won on hard court, which arguably is not their fault since both Australian and US Open were played on grass in their day. Agassi did win all four on three different surfaces, which makes him the only player other than Federer to do so, but Agassi won "only" 8 majors, not 14 like Federer.
Rod Laver had 2 calendard Grand Slams, but this is arguabily not comparable with today standards for two main reasons.
1. First was won on amateur tournaments, the other big contenders of that era had turned pro and then could not compete, so he had it easier. Second was won on pro tournaments with all the other top players, that counts.
2. At that time (1969) 3 of the 4 grand slams were played on grass, only 1 on clay ( the French ) , nowadays the 4 slams are played on 4 different surfaces, Wimby on grass, Roland Garros on red clay, US Open on Deco Turf hard courts and the Australian on Rebound Ace hard courts, the 4 surfaces perform differently and require a different playing style so it is much harder now to be able to win the 4 tournaments, and much more all at the same year, keep in mind that the most opposite surfaces slams are played shortly one after the other ( french and wimby ) leaving a very short time for a player to adapt his style.
That said, Rod Laver is still the greatest player ever on the "classic" wood racket/natural surfaces era.
Roger Federer is the greatest of them all on the modern tennis era, which is arguably more technically difficult than the classic one.
All excellent points, SL, and of course the level of fitness now required and the crowded calendar make the modern game that much physically harder.
Mind you, Laver was also king of the professional game, just as the "shamateur" game finished, and that, I think, was played on a greater variety of surfaces.
In the final analysis, trying to compare players from is as futile as comparing Grand Prix drivers - would Fangio have bettered Senna or Schumacher in the same equipment? We shall never know, and it will remain forever a matter of opinion. We can, however, all acknowledge sublime talent when we see it - and that is something Laver and Federer have in common.
This is exactly the point I tried to make few post earlier which SL stressed with a specific example. It is very much like comparing the "tennis of today" with "tennis of yesterday" or dry apples with fresh apples. One has been a great player at one's own time and history.
Remember that in the past tennis belonged to one of the most exclusive sports predominantly reserved to upper class. These days it attracts more crowds and surprisingly individuals hailing from less priviledged nations especially women tennis (Russia, Serbia, Ukraine nad Poland just to name a few) who didnt score high in the past nowadays rank in top ten's. Tennis becomes more physical game and demanding. Not only good technique counts but also endurance, stamina, patience and fighting spirit, yet not even going further into details of mental/psychological factor associated with particular player which is very important in this sport. If you have ever played a competitive tennis on various surfaces you will quickly realise that hard court very much differs from clay court or grass, indoor carpet court in terms of footwork, technique used, heaviness of tennis balls and other minor factors. The recovery time between consecutive matches and tournaments on the circuit is shorter relative to the physical exertion during the matches.
Now try to define the complete player who has experience on every surface, moves well, uses combination of offense and defense strokes to "chip and charge" against his opponent, he is patient, humble, not superficial and does not show off and most importantly is mentally tough - R.Federer of our times. Yes he might exibit emotions of crocodile on the court and soon afterwards emotions of "crying child who didnt get his lollypop".
He is a great player right "now" but the new tennis stars will be there in the future to come....
Roger is a star! Down to Earth and a top bloke. Him and his wife look sorted as well. I will be rooting for him to win Wimby 2009. Go! Fedex get that trophy.
Murray might really stretch him though. Roddick Vs Murray semi will be fun.
It's really incredible to go on 21 semi-final of Grand Slam whitout loosing any "small" match in Grand Slam. I think that's his best record, and for me this record make the difference between and all other players.
Yeah no micro-organisms will be found on or inside the cow There is a thread by Canadian Dude on veggie people, you might want to enlighten people like me with your superior knowledge
conners vs penfors. Both baseliners is the key point thats missing. Rallies went on for 20 or more shots a lot of the time. It was one of those jump-up-and-down-and-scream-at-the-telly matches to the very end.
Whats wrong with "crying like a baby" as you put it? So long as he reels in the Grand Slams, its perfectly ok in imo if he cries his heart out on TV.
He's reached the semi finals of 21 slams on the trot, won GSs on all 4 surfaces, has had the longest reign as world no. 1 and is a paragon of humilty and good behaviour.
Sometimes I feel that people tend to gravitate towards the bad asses more than towards players who are genuinely great (if a little bland).
The debate over whether he is the greatest of all time may not yet be over, but he has pretty much staked a major claim to that moniker already.
For me, this has to be probably the most emotionally gut wrenching tennis match that I've ever seen. I remember vividly watching it with my parents and friends and at the end of it all, there wasn't a dry eye in the house.