Federer storms to French Open & Grand Slam glory

Nah, I'm a New Zealander living in Japan.

Ohtani's jacket, thanks for the Slam clarification. You're in South Africa aren't you?

"Federer is definitely the player of this generation and I think his record will have him viewed as one of the best ever." Difficult to disagree with that Choppy, but i can't help wondering how he would've gone against Mac in his prime (including all the expletives that eventually turned some of us - me - off the sport for 10 or more years), how he would've handled the Irish-American's fiery temperament - "That was in you moron!" "Mr McEnroe that was out." "What is wrong with you - are you blind?!" "Mr McEnroe the ball was out." "You need your eyesight checked you ^%&*$#* moron!" "Point deduction to Mr McEnroe." "What?! Are you kidding me?!" "Point deduction for raquet abuse." "What?!?!" This was really Mac's equivalent of today's Ms Sharapova's high-pitched glass shattering squealing to disorientate the opponent, but as the Express doesn't engage in such underhanded methods, wow, what a phenomenal player he is. I hate myself for missing much of Sampras's career, but what I did catch was that he also played like clockwork. When he'd leap up off the ground to serve it reminded of a D.K. Lillee delivery.

Connors gets points deducted for the disgraceful trouncings he gave poor old Kenny Rosewall in 1974 when Rosewall was about to hit 40. Especially denying him at his last chance to win Wimbledon. No respect for the elderly, so Newk had to come out and teach him a little in the 75 Aussie open final. Actually I'm a Connors fan but I can't give him the nod over Borg or Mac. Fair point on McEnroe/Lendl though.

Joeb The conditions definitely helped Federer, the fact they watered the court (they do that before each day/game can't recall which) wasn't the issue so much as the fact it was much much colder so the water stayed on the court longer making it slightly slower and bouncing slightly lower. In comparing era's (personally I think it's impossible with changes in racquets, balls, court surfaces etc) it's worth noting that apart from Agassi, Federer is the only male to win the grand slam where there are 4 different surfaces which I think adds to the achievement. Melbourne Park replaced Kooyong as home of the Australian open in 1989 and went from Grass to Rebound Ace and the US Open moving from grass to clay in 1975 and then in 1978 went to it's current artificial surface. So all Grand Slams completed before then were 3 tournaments on Grass and the French on Clay. Federer is definitely the player of this generation and I think his record will have him viewed as one of the best ever.

McEnroe was a great player, but he was done by '85. I can see him being the best player from 1980-84, but there's six years left in that decade, so I'd probably split the decade between McEnroe and Lendl. Then there's the problem of Conners, who straddled the Borg/McEnroe era and spent a long time as the World No.1.

OJ, yes its contentious. McEnroe is my pick due as much to what he was capable of doing as what he actually did. He was a magician with the ball and had an allcourt game. Lendl was a great baseliner but had possibly the worst volleys of any player in history to reach no 1. That was ok for most surfaces but he suffered at Wimbledon for it. Wilander was also a great player, kind of in the Borg mould, but it's McEnroe's flair that works for me. His rivalry with Borg when Borg was at his best helps his case. They played some classics, although some may have been late 70's.

Rory, Why McEnroe in the 80s over Lendl or Wilander?

Well, if you include the professional majors that Rosewall, Laver, Tilden and Gonzales won, then they're all ahead of Sampras and Federer. It's somewhat odd that amateur and open titles are combined, yet pro titles are ignored, but I guess it gives the Grand Slam titles a lineage that they otherwise wouldn't have. If you compare Sampras and Federer with their pro careers, I think they measure up quite favourably. Gonzales, and to a lesser extent Rosewall, were the most affected by the amateur/pro split.

I generally think of it in terms of there being one great player each decade from the 20's (of course this is a bit unfair to those who came earlier). For what it's worth: 20's Bill Tilden 30's Don Budge 40's Jack Kramer 50's Pancho Gonzalez 60's Rod Laver 70's Bjorn Borg 80's John McEnroe 90's Pete Sampras 2000's Roger Federer Of course strong arguments could be made for others in each era, Hoad and Rosewall in the 50's/60's in particular. As mentioned, Gonzalez feared the explosive Hoad and felt that he could beat anyone except Hoad when Hoad was on. Hoad's peak was short lived due to back injury, though. Rosewall missed so many grand slams. Each brought something different in terms of their achievements but most of all each was a champion and knew how to win tournaments. It's hard to simply compare their games and imagine who would win as one of the strengths of a champ is to nullify your opponents strengths and play to your own. If these guys were able to play each other in a parallel universe, the matches might turn out very different than we imagine. Of course, you'd have to either give the past guys a modern racquet and some time to practice with it, or make Fed and Sampras play with wood.

As was mentioned today on the radio - Rosewell missed 44 majors while a professional, & Laver missed 20. Makes you think more about it.

It's a classic debate. What I like about it is that it's not simply a matter of who won the most Grand Slams or who spent the longest at No.1. Different guys accomplished different feats, and as Federer said in his post-match interview, it's the legends of the game that create tennis history. And what a rich history it is.

The clay court monkey finally off Federer's back and a truly amazing tennis record now. Showed a lot of mental strength to deal with the intruders - on the court, as well as in his head. One of the all time greats and still only 27. Rafael Nadal is a great player too and carried a few injuries into this tournament. He will bounce back to be an all time great as well. Different eras, different palyers - its not easy to compare. McEnroe had it on them all for sheer rudeness and aggro.

An interesting spin on things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_male_players_statistics.

Here's some stats just to confuse you some more. The open era (professional & amateur combined) dates from 1968. The year in which players were officially ranked for the first time was 1973. During the professional era (1940s through 1960s) there were 3 majors - Wembley (UK), US Pro & French Pro. I will concentrate on only 3 players - Gonzales, Rosewell & Laver. Wembley: Gonzales - (4) 1950-52, 54. Rosewell - (2) 1964, 67. Laver - (4) 1960-63. US Pro: Gonzales - (8) 1953-59, 61. Rosewell - (2) 1963, 65. Laver - (3) 1964, 66-67. French Pro: Gonzales - (nil). Rosewell - (8) 1958, 1960-66. Laver - (1) 1967. Unofficial world number one rankings before 1973. Gonzalez - (7) 1952, 54-60 (eq). Rosewell - (6) 1960(eq)-64, 70 (3 way). Laver - (6) 1965-70 (3 way) In 1970, the number one ranking was shared between Rosewell, Laver & John Newcombe - all Aussies. Newcombe shared it again in 1971 with American Stan Smith, who was solo number one in 1972. So I guess, this just adds a bit more confusion to the whole shebang!

I've always been a Rod Laver fan, & as an Aussie, proud to say he's the greatest male tennis player in history. Until now.......... I felt Laver was able to stave off the challenge of both Pete Sampras & Andre Agassi, but not Roger Federer. Sampras failed to win the French, which was his black spot. Agassi won all 4 majors, but not enough of them. Sure, Laver missed 5 years of majors (1963-67) when he was a professional, & he also won the grand slam twice (62 & 69). But there is a significant difference between when Laver played & now when Federer is playing. In Laver's day, 3 of the 4 majors were on grass. Today, each of the majors is a different surface. I don't think this fact can be under-estimated. In any case, Federer trumps Sampras. He has a French, & his 14 majors have been won in almost half the time it took Sampras the win the same amount. BTW, as a purely matter of interest, there is another name (or few) often thrown up for greatest male tennis player. The one I'm thinking of is the temperamental Mexican-American Pancho Gonzales. In an interview some years ago before he died, Gonzales rated Lew Hoad as the best of the Aussies he played (40s through 60s). He didn't think so highly of Laver, believing Laver lacked tactical nous. This stuck in my mind as this remains the only occasion I've read this about Laver.

Yes the debate is endless, but as you said OJ it's a good one. Before Federer it was always Laver for me. But one thing about Laver that is not always discussed is his rivalry with Rosewall. I think Rosewall had turned pro by the time Laver won his first Grand Slam, and Rosewall dominated Laver when Laver first entered the pro ranks. Rosewall would have won some grand slams between 58-62 if he wasn't pro. They played a lot of matches during their pro years up till 1969, and a few good ones after that. So it could be said that if those years robbed Laver of some Grand Slam titles, they certainly also robbed Rosewall. No doubt he would have a Wimbledon trophy or two sitting in that big gap on his mantlepiece. The pro/amatuer divide of the 50's/60's will always cloud the matter of who was the greatest.

The debate about the greatest player of all time will always continue. It's one of the great sporting debates and a credit to tennis. Eventually, someone will knock Federer from the mantle. You can make an argument for a bunch of different guys -- Laver, Tilden, Borg, Gonzales, Rosewall, Budge, Lendl, Connors, Sampras, McEnroe, and Kramer, but there's no set criteria because the game has evolved so much over the years. Federer didn't have opportunities Laver had and vice versa.

Spiro - I would never attempt to belittle the greatness of Laver. Amazing what he achieved having spent so many years banned. How many different surfaces did he win those GS's on though? My understanding is 3 were grass and then the clay of RG. Either way to win on grass and clay is rare.

Pete Sampras suggests that now Roger Federer is the greatest player of all time. I've got to disagree. Rod Laver was one of the six players to have won all the Grand Slam titles. He also won the Grand Slam in a year two times. His best years were spent out of the Grand Slam circuit playing professional tennis. How many more Grand Slam titles would he have won if tennis had been an open game during the whole of his career? Federer is one of the great players in the history of the game, no doubt about this. I'd rank him higher than say Sampras because his game is more complete, and Sampras never won the French Open. Federer also has never resorted to cheap tricks on the court to win tight matches. He has worked out the problems he has been having and generally suceeded. When he fails his emotions sometimes get the better of him, with tears welling up, but this is understandable for a player who competes with such an intensity to win. Let's call him the second greatest player of all time.