Federer has been the greatest for years

The Crowd Says (32) | Page 1 of Comments

• joeb said | July 8th 2009 @ 4:51am | Report comment

  “Federer still has a mental hurdle to get over against Nadal which will hopefully come up at the US Open.“ Here’s hoping Nadal whip’s his ass good and proper.

  “I didn’t see this Wimbledon final, but 16-14 in the fifth sounds like a classic.“ Once upon a time Ch Nine would replay the final (maybe this Saturday afternoon?) but now they show the English Super League instead… Missed the Women’s Final and there was Pommy Super League last Sunday arvo instead of Serens vs Venus.

  “the 2008 Wimbledon final, which was the greatest tennis match of all time.“ Missed it. But McEnroe agrees with you, by his radio comments last year.

  Reply

• Brian said | July 8th 2009 @ 9:37am | Report comment

  Even if he struggles against Nadal he is still the greatest ever. Nadal was injured this time but the previous majors Fed won he was simply not consistent enough to make the final. This is hardly Federer’s fault. Federer has made 22 consecutive gran slam semi-finals. I dont think we will see that again in the next 50 years.

  Reply

• BigAl said | July 8th 2009 @ 9:44am | Report comment

  Interestingly, I took Federer’s crying last year after that great Wimbledon final to mean that the realisation was dawning on him that no matter how well he played, when both of them are at their best, Nadal had shown that he was better.

  What could stop Nadal proving this in the future would most likely be himself ! – the sheer pounding he subjects his body too .

  Reply

• Brett McKay said | July 8th 2009 @ 9:46am | Report comment

  Beardan, I don’t disagree with your main theme here, and there’s been universal praise for Federer’s achievement at Wimbledon on Sunday, and quite rightly so. There is no doubting he is on the top shelf of tennis champions.

  That said, it’s a little hard to get past “He is also in the top ten sportspeople of all time” and not ask how you’ve come to this conclusion?? Is this your opinion, or are you actually basing this comment on some kind of ranking (and if so, where did he come in, and who are the other nine??)

  Reply

• Beardan said | July 8th 2009 @ 10:00am | Report comment

  Brett,

  This is my opinion as there can be no serious ranking system that can give a top 10. Michael Jordan is the greatest sportman of all time. He could do everything, attack, defend, go to the basket, hit a clutch jumper, defend a lead, bring the team back from a deficit, inspire through actions, and he could do what no other human has ever been able to do, fly.

  Tiger Woods is the second greatest sportsman of all time. I havent worked out the order of the other 8. I can tell you however that Michael Phelps and Roger Federer are in it. Pele and Mohammed Ali are overrated but may still figure. I havent quite got to working that out either. Sir Don would clearly be there but since cricket isnt truly a global sport he simply cant figure. Christiano Ronaldo will make the top 10 in the next 3-4 years if he continues his brilliant brand of football he has delivered for the last 5 or 6 years.

  Beardan

  Reply

• Brett McKay said | July 8th 2009 @ 10:22am | Report comment

  no problems Beardan, it just gets a little confusing when opinion is presented as fact. Just wanted to clear that up.

  And anyway, even if there was some kind of ranking, there’d be disagreement regardless….

  Reply

• Rory said | July 8th 2009 @ 11:22am | Report comment

  I agree with this article in one sense, that “Federer Is the most fluent and pure tennis player of all time”. Anyone who knows tennis has known there is something very special about the way Federer plays from the moment they first saw him play. It is no accident that great tennis players of days past flock to his matches, and Laver’s comments about his shot-making and footwork aren’t made flippantly.

  However, this whole “G.O.A.T.” thing is getting a little out of hand. Again I’d have to agree with Laver when he says the best you can do is say whether someone is the best of their era, and Federer is clearly that. His record over the last 6 years beggars belief and in all honesty sets him apart from other great players, however, just as Federer has that extra ability to win huge matches when he is not even playing particularly well, as against Roddick, so did all of the other greats. This is part of the makeup of the champion. They find a way to win.

  Aside from the obvious difference in racquets, surfaces, and the size of the players, we can never know how the great players would choose to play each other tactically. How would Don Budge have approached a match against Bjorn Borg? Would Bill Tilden have found a way to dominate Laver with his serve? Who would emerge victor in a slug fest between Pancho Gonzales and Pete Sampras? And would anyone, even Federer on a good day, have a chance against Lew Hoad at his very best?

  I tend to see it as a case of each decade having a dominant player or two, and throughout tennis history there are examples of the fading star of the previous decade being able to beat the rising star of the current decade. Not regularly, but on occasion, and that is significant. Usually the older player was pushing forty and the current champ was around his prime. Tilden beat Budge, Budge beat Kramer, Kramer beat Gonzales, Gonzales beat Laver, Laver beat Borg. Recently, Sampras beat Federer in one out of three. Another example, although the two players are just below the “greats” echelon, is John Newcombe beating Jimmy Connors in the seventies when Connors was No.1. Connors was still able to make Grand Slam semis in 1991.

  Federer is, in my opinion, the best player of the open era, but that can’t be presented as fact. Before that, the amatuer/pro divide clouds things too much. Laver would have almost certailny chalked up more than 15 Grand Slams, but is the number of Grand Slams the only measure? I think there are around 6 to 10 “greatest” players, but I do feel priveleged to have seen Federer’s whole career.

  Now regarding, the whole Nadal debate, I couldn’t disagree more with BigAl saying that when they are both at their best, Nadal is better. Federer rarely plays his best against Nadal, and despite what people say, I don’t think Fed was at his best in the 08 Wimbledon Final. Federer is a more talented player, but is extremely intimidated by Nadal’s ability to push his body to unbelievable lengths to get that next ball back, and the one after that. He tightens up and makes errors. If people are going to give Nadal concession recently for his knee problems, thay have to give Federer concession for pretty much the whole of 08 because of Mononucleosis.

  Reply

• Brian said | July 8th 2009 @ 11:48am | Report comment

  Interesting points Rory. What does however stand out for me is that tennis until the 1970s was probably not played in a whole lot of countries (UK, US, France and Australia). So apart from using wooden racquets the likes of Hoad, Tilden & Budge faced much reduced competition when compared to Federer or Nadal. To take my hypothetical further if only the original 4 countries played tennis today Roddick or Hewitt may have won 15 slams by now. The other point is of course professionalism, the guys from the past did not have the time to work their bodies up like Nadal so I agree the pre-open era is too hard to worry about.

  Certainly then as the greates player of the open era we can declare him the G.O.A.T. This doesnt mean that Tilden or Laver were neccesarily less talented but given the restrictions of their time, Federer was the better tennis player.

  Reply

• Rory said | July 8th 2009 @ 12:38pm | Report comment

  Brian, as you say, the depth is far greater now, and that makes Federer’s achievement even more exceptional. My point I guess is that a great champ is a great champ and when you put two of them on the court against each other you never know what’s going to come out in the wash. I’m also wondering why there is such a need to have him declared “officially” the GOAT. I noticed Ken Sutcliffe introducing him that way as if it was a given.

  Interestingly, one aspect of the game having a smaller player base in the old days was that the best players played each other much more often, especially in the pro ranks as they were only a small travelling band. For example, Laver and Rosewall played each other over 100 times, and Rosewall dominated until Laver was 25 and Rosewall 30. Makes the Federer/Nadal head to head stats seem less significant.

  Reply

• BigAl said | July 8th 2009 @ 1:18pm | Report comment

  The question raised re. playing depth is an interesting one.
  Certainly the best players are now coming from a greater range of countries which I assume can be translated into more players in those countries.
  However in the ‘traditional’ tennis countries (particularly US & Aus.) there are far, far less participants.
  What has changed is the increased ability (both scentifically & traditionally) to identify talent at an early age and to nuture it

  Reply