Federer has been the greatest for years
Roar Guru By Beardan, 8 Jul 2009 The Crowd is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- Raphael Nadal, Roger Federer, Tennis, Wimbledon
Spain's Rafael Nadal receives a pat on the stomach from Switzerland's Roger Federer - AP Photo/Christophe Ena
Roger Federer won his fifteenth Grand Slam when he took out his sixth Wimbledon title. The ill-informed are asking if Federer is now the greatest ever. In fact, Federer has been the greatest ever for the last three years.
Federer Is the most fluent and pure tennis player of all time. He is also in the top ten sportspeople of all time.
What goes against Federer though is what has happened at the last six majors.
Federer has won three of the last six and Nadal has won the other three. In the three that Nadal has won, he has beaten Federer in the final all three times.
Federer has avoided Nadal in the three he has won each time.
Federer still has a mental hurdle to get over against Nadal which will hopefully come up at the US Open. I didn’t see this Wimbledon final, but 16-14 in the fifth sounds like a classic.
Though I couldn’t imagine it being better than the 2008 Wimbledon final, which was the greatest tennis match of all time.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- Raphael Nadal, Roger Federer, Tennis, Wimbledon
July 8th 2009 @ 3:26pm
Brian said | July 8th 2009 @ 3:26pm | Report comment
Is there any proof of less participation in Australia. I would have thought that Cricket, Swimming, Athletics, AFL, Rugby were all around in the 1950s and 1960s. It doesn’t strike me that the popularity of tennis in Australia has changed that much in the last 50 years.
July 8th 2009 @ 3:41pm
Rory said | July 8th 2009 @ 3:41pm | Report comment
Brian, participation has decreased dramatically since I was a kid and started playing competitively in the seventies. That’s an unfortunate but concrete fact. Since then there would be at least a 50% decrease (I would suggest that’s conservative) in registered competitive players – it’s certainly the case in Sydney and I believe also elsewhere in Australia. Once thriving Tennis clubs are now just barely hanging in there. There are many factors causing this decline…but the end result is plain to see in the ranks of our current pro players. Things have never been so bad.
In the 50′s and 60′s it was one of the more popular sports with an endless parade of champions who became household names for kids to look up to. In those days, tennis here got its fair share of the best athletes. Now it does not.
July 8th 2009 @ 3:44pm
Jameswm said | July 8th 2009 @ 3:44pm | Report comment
Of course, with sports like tennis, there’s always the question of the value of dominating a sport which so much of the world population doesn’t or can’t play. Tennis and golf are two examples, but add in swimming.
Even in Australia, there are so many sporty kids who could be world beaters at tennis, but never take it seriously. Ditto with golf.
Running is the only sport about every kid in the world does. Football/soccer would be the next highest, though you do lose a lot to the other football codes in a few select countries. And in countries like India and China, have 40% of the world’s population between them, football isn’t taken so seriously. Kids in India with advanced ball skills play cricket.
Which brings me back to running/athletics. Most kids in the world do running at a school carnival and know they are good at it. Of course some don’t go on with it or move to other sports where the speed helps, but to get to the top in running, you start off with the widest group to select from.
So I’ll take Usain Bolt as the greatest sportsman in the world right now thanks. Phelps, Tiger and the FedEx are fantastic at their chosen sport, but let’s face it – how many people in the world take a 400 Individual Medley seriously? Without denigrating their success, how many people were Perkins and Hackett competing against? What would Ricky Ponting have been like at golf if he took it as seriously as his cricket?
July 8th 2009 @ 3:51pm
sheek said | July 8th 2009 @ 3:51pm | Report comment
Beardan,
This is a bit of a self-indulgent post. Federer is probably the best tennis male player in history, but it is difficult to say so conclusively. Tennis has changed much more over the past 50 years compared to say, team sports, especially regarding the surfaces played upon.
“Federer is the most fluent & pure tennis player of all time”. What is your proof? Are you 90 years old, & can say you saw Bill Tilden play in the 1920s, for example?
In any case, being fluent & pure is not always commensurate with skill & ability. The great Don Bradman didn’t have a great purist’s technique for example, but that didn’t stop him from becoming the greatest batsman the world of cricket has ever witnessed.
As for Nadal, the only surface where Nadal seems to have a distinct advantage over Federer is on clay. Otherwise, Fed is usually the king.
Federer is probably the best because he’s won most majors to date (15 & counting), & on 4 different surfaces. And it’s that last factor that is significant.
But Rod Laver for example, missed 20 majors while ineligible as a professional. Furthermore, the talent pool was probably stronger back in the 1960s, with more players capable of knocking each other over on any given day. Federer hasn’t had the same degree of opposition.
So to make a conclusive argument is extremely difficult. Especially in tennis.
July 8th 2009 @ 4:07pm
Chop said | July 8th 2009 @ 4:07pm | Report comment
Sheek,
the talent pool was probably stronger back in the 1960s
This could not be further from the truth, 63 nationalities competed in the Australian Open this year and compare that to 40 years ago when there were only 12 nationalities.
There are so many more players playing tennis now that the competition is much tougher.
I do agree with you that it’s almost impossible to compare across era’s but I’m happy to say that in this generation I think Sampras, Agassi and Federer are along way in front of everyone else.
July 8th 2009 @ 4:20pm
sheek said | July 8th 2009 @ 4:20pm | Report comment
Chop,
I’m not referring to the number of countries competing. I’m referring to the quality of players at the top end & their relative merit compared to each other.
Certainly, the standard is very tough say between 21 & 100. But at present there is a clear pecking order in the top 5 or 6. I would suggest women’s tennis is more competitive at the moment, with perhaps as many as 7-8 players capable of beating each other on a given day.
Remember the great Windies pace attack of the 80s? 4 great pacemen, all competing for wickets against each other. They were each lucky to finish with a little more than 4 wickets per test in their career, but at a low average.
On the other hand, the great Kiwi Richard Hadlee managed over 5 wickets per test, because he didn’t have the same competition from his fellow bowlers for wickets.
Of course, Federer can only beat what’s in front of him, & he does this magnificently. Sampras, apart from Agassi, also suffered from sufficient competition.
Back in the late 60s for example, Laver had severe competition from fellow Aussies Rosewall, Newcombe, Roche, Emerson & Stolle; Americans Ashe, Gonzales & Smith; & the Spaniad Santana, among others. There may not have been as many countries involved, but those countries involved did produce plenty of competition for each other.
July 8th 2009 @ 4:28pm
Brian said | July 8th 2009 @ 4:28pm | Report comment
Sheek
Did you ever think that maybe the competition is just as good but Federer is better than those 1960s players and thats why he dominates them.
July 8th 2009 @ 4:34pm
Jameswm said | July 8th 2009 @ 4:34pm | Report comment
And on Michael Jordan…
I was as in awe of him as anyone, but how many people in the world take basketball seriously?
It’s like being the Australian champion in badminton or fencing – making the semis at nationals in the 100 sprint – in either athletics or swimming – is a far more significant achievement.
July 8th 2009 @ 4:39pm
sheek said | July 8th 2009 @ 4:39pm | Report comment
Guys,
Another thing. Each generation is always guilty of saying the players they saw in their time were the best ever.
It’s a self-indulgent thing. You know – “I lived in the best of times, because we had the best players”, that sort of thing.
I prefer to listen to the opinion of guys who have not only witnessed sport first-hand for at least 30 years, but also have delved into the history of their particular sport, & can compare performances of the great players across different eras. These kind of guys have a better idea of who’s the best.
A better idea… not necessarily conclusive!
July 8th 2009 @ 4:40pm
beaver fever said | July 8th 2009 @ 4:40pm | Report comment
Federer is with out doubt the greatest.
The talent pool is far greater now.
Tennis is a great way out for eastern europeans in particular ..women, aussies dont need out we have it pretty good (generally)
IMO tennis in Australia does not have the standing it did in the 50s, 60s and 70s.
I would say per capita less people now play tennis in OZ than 20 years ago.
For whatever reason it seems that tennis has become a upper middle class sport, expensive lessons for kids etc etc etc (was it always like this ??? ) or did natural ability get you further 20/30 years ago.