“He is the most beautiful player I’ve ever seen and I don’t get tired of watching him. Rod Laver is my idol, Pete Sampras is the greatest grass court player ever, but Roger Federer is just the greatest player of all … I would probably say the 23 semis or better in straight Majors in a row is the best record of them all.”
McEnroe was talking to the Swiss media before his own appearance in a new APT Champions Tour event in Zurich.
There may have been an element of telling the local media what they want to hear in McEnroe’s pitch. It also came at a time when Rafael Nadal was struggling with injury, which allowed Federer to take out his first French Open, a tournament that Nadal had dominated over Federer for years.
You wonder if McEnroe would make the same sort of sweeping statement now that Federer has been overwhelmed in the latest Australian Open.
There was discussion in the commentary box that unless Federer moved to a more powerful racquet, his days of winning Grand Slam tournaments might be over.
If Federer does not win another Grand Slam tournament he will finish with 16 Grand Slam tournaments, two more than won by Sampras. How will this effect how future generations look on his record? And what if Nadal actually wins a calendar year Grand Slam?
The point about all this is designations of “the greatest” tend to be a moveable feast. There are very few sportsmen or women whose career records can be expected to stand into the foreseeable future, if not forever. Don Bradman’s batting statistics will never be emulated.
Probably, too, no female tennis player will ever win 24 Grand Slam titles, like Margaret Court.
Although, Steffi Graff came close with 22 titles.
In the men’s, Nadal, particularly, and possibly Federer, will improve on his current record. How many more Grand Slam titles, though, is the crucial point.
Nadal would need to double his present collection, in my opinion, to be in the running. And even then there would be serious impediments to his claims.
Those impediments go to the type of game he plays, which is essentially defensive, retrieving everything from the baseline or many metres behind it, and using the angles to hit final, conclusive winners.
When you are talking about the greatest in anything (I know this is all subjective) a crucial consideration has to be the style of the person concerned. The greatest tennis player, in this sort of calculation, needs to have all-court, varied game with strengths in every aspect of play.
This sort of dictate eliminates Pete Sampras, for instance.
It is fatal, right now to any consideration of Nadal (although the proviso here is that he is in the middle of his career). And it makes the case for Roger Federer (not finished in his career but closer to its end than its middle) doubtful, too.
Look at Federer’s record and you find he has won six Wimbledon’s, five US Opens, four Australian Opens and one French Open.
Compare with Rod Laver, my nomination for the greatest tennis player of them all: four Wimbledons, three Australian Opens, two US Opens and two French Opens.
Laver was terrific on every surface.
He also won two Grand Slams, as an amateur in 1962 and as a professional in his next chance in 1969. As a professional, he won every major title in 1967, the so-called “Professional Slam.” Ken Rosewell was the only other professional to achieve this in 1963.
Did Laver have the all-court game we demand from ‘the greatest?
The famous broadcaster, Dan Maskell, opined: “Laver was technically faultless, from his richly varied serve to his feather-light touch on drop volleys plus a backhand drive carrying destructive topspin when needed or controlling slice when the occasion demanded it.”
I had the pleasure of watching Laver make his professional debut in White City against Lew Hoad. Hoad, a tremendously talented player and on his day totally dominant, won in two sets to one. But as soon as Laver got up to pace with the professional game, he then consistently defeated Hoad and Rosewell and the other talents on show night after night around the world.
There is a very detailed analysis of GOATS, Greatest Of All Time, on Wood Tennis. It runs to over 20 pages of text. J.Oesch, the author, lists his greatest in this order: Rod Laver, Bill Tilden, Pancho Gonzales, Don Budge, Randall Vines, Jack Kramer, Roger Federer, Pete Sampras, Fred Perry, Ken Rosewall, John McEnroe, Bjorn Borg, Lew Hoad, Rafael Nadal.
This list is unduly biased, in my view, to the eras before tennis became an open game. The modern players like Federer, Nadal, Aggasi and Lendl should deserve a higher ranking.
Before tennis became an open game the dominant tennis countries (aside from France in the 1920s) were the United States and Australia. But as the last Australian Open demonstrated, there are a number of other countries (which provided no champions before the open era) that have emerged as tennis powers.
The effect of this is to increase the competition. So a grand slam victory now is achieved against opponents from a much wider world of talent than in the past.
Having said that, I once saw Gonzales, well past his prime, playing at Wellington in a familiar gale. Gonzales served heavily-spun balls that bounced so high they were unplayable by his opponents. He had a lethal, cat-like agility and a variety of shots that has probably never been equalled. He was a big man, too, and could turn on the power when he wanted to.
My guess is that Gonzales and Hoad were the two greatest players at their best on their day. But as longevity and dominance over a period of years must be part of the final consideration, together with the accumulation of trophies, neither can be the all-time number one. Gonzales was eight times world professional champion. But most of the the best players at the time were amateurs.
Laver’s first grand slam in 1962 did not involve the professional players, who were then much better than the amateurs. But his second grand slam in 1969, when tennis became an open sport, was achieved against the best of the former professionals and amateurs.
So he has my vote for the greatest tennis player ever.
So far …
john
Guest
laver most certainly did play on hard courts. His pro slam was achieved on hard courts
Drew Fisher
Guest
1967: Pro Tour "Slam"
amazonfan
Roar Guru
Do you have a reference to the ICC Test Cricket Team of the Century?
Red V Man
Guest
Laver v Federer. Bradman v Tendulkar. Nicklaus v Woods. Lewis v Johns. Warne v the rest. Court v Graf. Senna v Schumacher. Johnson v Jordan. Pele v Maradonna. The list goes on. GOAT debates have raged since the dawn of time and will do so forever. All great sports people deserve our respect and admiration for enhancing our lives. We cannot make valid comparsions without watching both parties in their prime. As this is impossible, we must use statistics and other factors such as the quality of opponents, playing conditions and technology when conducting such debates. The ICC Test Cricket Team of the Century was released in 2009 and included Sir Donld Bradman, Sir Garfield Sobers and Shane Warne. Sir Donald played his last test match in 1948, Sir Garfield in 1974 and Shane Warne in 2007. Even though very few members of the 100-strong expert selection panel would have seen all three in primes, they are widely regarded as the best batsman, all-rounder and spinner in test cricket history. The team is universally accepted as being the greatest of the century. In June/July 2011 over 250,000 people worldwide voted for the Greatest Test Cricket Team of All Time on the ICC website from a list of 60 players provided by the ICC. The list included the three aforementioned players with an even distribution of past and present players. Sir Donald and Shane made the final 11 with Sir Donald being the only player whose career ended before 1970. The remaining 10 members all started their test careers after 1971. The list of 60 players included 6 Indians (10%) with 4 included in the final 11 (36.4%) including 2 current players. This difference is due to India being the most populous cricket-playing nation, having the largest number of internet subscribers of the test cricket nations and is the economic engine of the sport. Both lists are valuable and relevant in the discussion of the Grestest Test Cricket Team ever because they contribute to the positive growth of the sport. Sport is to be enjoyed so let us continue to disagree about the GOAT but agree that sport contributes to the positive development of humanity.
Rory
Guest
You didn't get into tennis until after Sampras. And you've played a bit of hit and giggle with a wooden racquet. And you think you've got it all sussed out as to how good tennis players were in the past. Fair enough, but it's beyond me...
amazonfan
Roar Guru
I could do the same as what you did and say 'Blah blah blah.' Instead I won't comment at all, other than to ask whether 'goddamn ' is really necessary?
amazonfan
Roar Guru
BTW, can people please stop using the term 'Calender slam'? A Grand Slam is a Calender slam. If someone wins four straights slams in a two year period, it is not a Grand Slam.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
"Blah blah blah" Nice guy. "you can nitpick at my argument all you want" I wasn't nitpicking. I was disagreeing, or in your world, is disagreement the same thing as nitpicking? " but you didn’t raise a single convincing point that demonstrates how Laver is superior to Federer. " What makes you think that your points were convincing themselves? You never actually asked me why I consider Laver to be superior. You just raised arguments that you imagined I would bring up (which kind of defeats the purpose of having a discussion), made silly generalisations, and showcased your arrogance. You never indicated you were interested in discussion at all. "By the way, are you in your 50′s/60′s?" No, I'm not, and my age is irrelevant. "If you’d watch this collection, you’d see that Laver won all his grand slams on either clay or grass, and never even demonstrated a lot of prowess on hard courts as we know them today." As I said before, he won several big hard court tournaments in the open era. "If the greatest clay courter of all time didn’t happen to run into Federer in one SF and 3 Fs in the FO I highly doubt this discussion would even be taking place, as he’d have about 20 slams on three different surfaces and would’ve got his Calendar slam probably twice." Maybe, maybe not. I don't deal in hypotheticals. Afterall, if Laver had been able to compete in the slams during the mid 60's, he might have claimed The Grand Slam three or four times, and might have claimed 24+ slams. Anyway, regarding Nadal, I'm not convinced he's the greatest clay courter of all time. I think he needs to win one more French Open title to become the greatest.
Daniel
Guest
Seriously though, when it comes down to it, the best player of all time is obviously Jurgen Melzer. His name sounds like a goddamn Ben & Jerry ice cream flavour
Daniel
Guest
Blah blah blah, you can nitpick at my argument all you want but you didn't raise a single convincing point that demonstrates how Laver is superior to Federer. By the way, are you in your 50's/60's? How are you so familiar with his game that you can compare him to Federer, as I know Youtube and torrents only offer about 5 of his matches. Or somehow have you come across a giant VHS collection of taped Laver matches? If you'd watch this collection, you'd see that Laver won all his grand slams on either clay or grass, and never even demonstrated a lot of prowess on hard courts as we know them today. If the greatest clay courter of all time didn't happen to run into Federer in one SF and 3 Fs in the FO I highly doubt this discussion would even be taking place, as he'd have about 20 slams on three different surfaces and would've got his Calendar slam probably twice.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
I forgot to finish my post. :D I posted it before I completed it. Regarding the hard court matches, I meant to write the following: All perhaps true, except for the hard court comment. During the open era, he won several big tournaments on hard court.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
"if slams aren’t the ultimate indication of who is better, then what is? Masters 1000 tournaments?" No, I never actually said that. I said that number of slams won is not the only criteria to determine the best of all time. The fact that one player has won more slams than another does not make him better. Here are the leading slam winners: 1)Federer-16 2)Sampras-14 3)Emerson-12 4)Laver/Borg-11 6)Tilden-10 7)Nadal-9 Most would argue that Nadal was superior to both Tilden and Emerson, even though he won less slams then they did. Similarly, if Federer hadn't won the French, thus winning 15 slams, he would not be considered the greatest by many even though he has still won more slams than anyone else. There are many ways to determine the greatest of all time, and it differs per person, however I don't think you could argue that the number of slams won is the prime criteria to determine the greatest. If it were so, then Emerson would have been considerd the greatest for 30 years (until Sampras broke his record). "Ok, Nadal has won more than anybody ever has at age 24." To be perfectly honest, this doesn't impress me as much as it does may other people. Nadal has done incredible things by the age of 24. But what if he doesn't do anything else? I think it is just as impressive to win slams at a later age than it is to win slams at a younger age, and it is more impressive to win slams at both ends of the scale. "Federer is obviously the most complete player of all time, and no one can do what he does with a racquet." I agree. " Laver cannot jump 4 feet into the air and hit top spin overheads from the doubles court to pass his opponent, jump from awkward angles to hit backhand smashes (which no one even thought to do back then), hit between the leg passing shots, and Laver never even had to win matches on hard courts." All perhaps true, except for the hard court comment. During the open era, he won "t’s a romantic notion to view Laver as the best, but in the same way that one might think Bobby Orr/Gordie Howe is the best hockey player of all time when Sidney Crosby or Ovechkin can simply do way more impressive things on the ice these days." Sorry, I know nothing about ice hockey. I always presumed that Wayne Gretxky and Mario Lamioux (sp) were considered to be the greatest. Anyway, romantic or not, I do think it's true about Laver. "He’s won more major tournaments than Laver and clearly has the best forehand the game has ever seen." Yes, but he has never claimed The Grand Slam, which Laver did twice. Plus, while I hate 'what ifs', I do think it is interesting to consider how many slams Laver would have won if he was able to compete. Afterall, he dominated as a professional. "You might try and use the wooden racquet argument against me, but my friend and I play with wooden and aluminum racquets all the time in the summer for fun and I find it really doesn’t make that much of a difference other than a lack of forgiveness and power." I'm not trying to make any argument. The fact is that technology has increased in extraordinary ways. Federer, for instance, has been criticised for not changing his raquet. Anyway, technology is only one disadvantage that Laver had. "You can’t use technological inferiority as an excuse to say an older players were better, it’s like saying “Well, World War Two pilots were better than the ones nowadays, they just couldn’t do as much because of the technology”. Couldn’t do as much being the key words – the best argument you might be able to put forth is that “Laver can’t do as much sure, but maybe if he had a time machine and could move to the 2000′s in his prime physical condition and trained to become adept at the modern game and was a given a modern racquet then hypothetically he could possibly reach the level that Federer played at in 2004-07 maybe”. You can only judge a player on how they achieved in the era in which they played, and I think Laver was more impressive in 1962 & 1969 than Federer was in 2004-2007. "Serve and volley tennis faded out for a reason – it was boring and two-dimensional. Courts were slowed down so that tennis could become a two man game, because watching a server run to the net over and over again is dull." According to you. According to you, serve and volley was boring and two-dimensional. Personally I loved it. Edberg, Rafter, Becker etc... these were joys to watch. "The same people that argue Laver is better I’d bet are the same people that whine that Wimbledon shouldn’t have been slowed down " Oh, please. What makes you think you can make such generalisations? MANY people consider Laver to be better, and you think that these are all people who whine that Wimbledon shouldn’t have been slowed down? Yeh, I would take that bet, and you would lose. I do consider Laver to be better, and you have no idea what I think of the surfaces at Wimbledon. So silly. Imagine if I said that the same people that argue Federer is better I’d bet are the same people that whine that serve and volley was boring and two-dimensional? " I didn’t even get into tennis until it did, because the people that dominated (like Sampras) ran to the net 5000 times." Well, good for you, however it does not mean that those who disagree with you are somehow wrong for doing so.
Daniel
Guest
"Poor ventilation and full of tobacco smoke". Yes, ventilation was undoubtedly the reason that players back then suffered - wait a minute, Bill Tilden was a smoker, ate terribly, and is considered one of the greatest of all time. But you're right, I agree that many players today who followed such a regiment would probably throw up if they led a hedonistic and homosexual lifestyle like that. @amazonfan - if slams aren't the ultimate indication of who is better, then what is? Masters 1000 tournaments? Ok, Nadal has won more than anybody ever has at age 24. Federer is obviously the most complete player of all time, and no one can do what he does with a racquet. Laver cannot jump 4 feet into the air and hit top spin overheads from the doubles court to pass his opponent, jump from awkward angles to hit backhand smashes (which no one even thought to do back then), hit between the leg passing shots, and Laver never even had to win matches on hard courts. It's a romantic notion to view Laver as the best, but in the same way that one might think Bobby Orr/Gordie Howe is the best hockey player of all time when Sidney Crosby or Ovechkin can simply do way more impressive things on the ice these days. He's won more major tournaments than Laver and clearly has the best forehand the game has ever seen. You might try and use the wooden racquet argument against me, but my friend and I play with wooden and aluminum racquets all the time in the summer for fun and I find it really doesn't make that much of a difference other than a lack of forgiveness and power. You can't use technological inferiority as an excuse to say an older players were better, it's like saying "Well, World War Two pilots were better than the ones nowadays, they just couldn't do as much because of the technology". Couldn't do as much being the key words - the best argument you might be able to put forth is that "Laver can't do as much sure, but maybe if he had a time machine and could move to the 2000's in his prime physical condition and trained to become adept at the modern game and was a given a modern racquet then hypothetically he could possibly reach the level that Federer played at in 2004-07 maybe". Serve and volley tennis faded out for a reason - it was boring and two-dimensional. Courts were slowed down so that tennis could become a two man game, because watching a server run to the net over and over again is dull. The same people that argue Laver is better I'd bet are the same people that whine that Wimbledon shouldn't have been slowed down - I didn't even get into tennis until it did, because the people that dominated (like Sampras) ran to the net 5000 times.
martin copelin
Guest
If my memory is correct Connors was 22 years old and world number one. Laver was heading into retirement and had not played a real competitive match for some time. Connors also played Newcombe who was also on the way out, however Newcombe at least took a set off Connors. I had forgotten how great laver was and have changed my mind about Federer being the greatest ever. Fed would still be a great player if he had to use wooden racquets however Nadal certainly would not be. In the professional era when players were banned from the grand slams and playing amateurs they had a very tough circuit playing on all sorts of surfaces, some indoors with poor ventilation and full of tobacco smoke. In that tough grinding sort of compulsory continuous matches you would find many of todays players would break down phisically. The likes of the clever but brutal Pancho Gonzales would overwhelm not to mention the great Laver who had to relearn the game when he converted to the professional ranks. In my humble opinion the all time rankings would be in this order. Laver, Federer, Gonzales, Hoad, Borg, Sampras, McEnroe, Lendl, Rosewall, Newcombe.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
"That’s the interesting thing, is that a non-professional cannot judge who is better out of Nadal or Federer." I disagree with that. However if it is true, how can you judge whom is better? "Federer had many less slams than Nadal did at Nadal’s current age, but of course because Federer is the best known face in tennis, non-professionals and fans of Federer (not fans of tennis) allege he is the best." Two comments. One, how many slams a player has is not the only criteria of greatness. Don't forget that Nadal has less slams than both Tilden and Emerson, however many people would argue that Nadal is superior to both players. Two, some players peak at a later age. The fact that Nadal has won more slams at an earlier age does not automatically mean he is better. In fact, we could do the reverce. How many slams will Nadal win in his late 20's compared to Federer? Winning slams at a younger age is great but it doesn't automatically make one better. "He does indeed have the most aesthetically pleasing and graceful tennis, but if Nadal stays healthy, it’s not too much to ask for him to win 7 more slams and tie Federer’s record." Perhaps Nadal will tie and maybe even break Federer's record, however it won't automatically make him better. Personally, I am not convinced that Nadal can ever surpass Federer. BTW, Laver IMO remains the greatest of all time, however he won five less slams than Federer. "It’s not about looking pretty when you’re on the court, it’s about winning, and if Nadal exceeds Federer’s past triumphs, he’s better, and is up there for the greatest of all time with Fedskies." Not necessarily. Just because Nadal exceeds Federer’s past triumphs, he's not necessarily better. However if he does win many more slams, I do think that he will become the third greatest player of all time after Laver and Federer. "his whole GOAT conversation is actually retarded until both Nadal and Federer retire" Couldn't agree more! :D Although I do hate the term GOAT. " because if Nadal stays healthy Federer might not even be the best in his generation." Perhaps, although I doubt it (regardless of how many more slams Nadal wins.) "Federer is the best of all time" Disagree. Laver IMO is the best of all time. "but we don’t even know if we’re wasting our words as in 4 years from Nadal could be sitting on 9 more slams." As I said before, number of slams won is not the only criteria to determine the best of all time.
junglecat
Guest
That's the interesting thing, is that a non-professional cannot judge who is better out of Nadal or Federer. Federer had many less slams than Nadal did at Nadal's current age, but of course because Federer is the best known face in tennis, non-professionals and fans of Federer (not fans of tennis) allege he is the best. He does indeed have the most aesthetically pleasing and graceful tennis, but if Nadal stays healthy, it's not too much to ask for him to win 7 more slams and tie Federer's record. It's not about looking pretty when you're on the court, it's about winning, and if Nadal exceeds Federer's past triumphs, he's better, and is up there for the greatest of all time with Fedskies. His serve is getting better, volleys are now some of the best in the game, and he's complete the career slam at a ridiculously young age. This whole GOAT conversation is actually retarded until both Nadal and Federer retire, because if Nadal stays healthy Federer might not even be the best in his generation. They've split pretty much the last 5 years of slams, and as it stands, Federer is the best of all time, but we don't even know if we're wasting our words as in 4 years from Nadal could be sitting on 9 more slams.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
There are things a professional player would know that a non-professional wouldn't, but they do not include evalutating talent. No non-professional could know what it feels like to serve for the match in the final of Wimbledon, or even to play on centre court Wimbledon (although one might be able to imagine), but a non-professional can evaluate who is better of Nadal and Federer, for example.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
"Players of the next era won’t be as good because Federer is in such a different class." You don't see the contradiction? Laver was in a completely different class (the only player to claim The Grand Slam twice), and yet you think that today's players are better, however you don't think that players in the next era will be as good as Federer. I think that is a massive contradiction, and it is also incredibly inconsistent. Anyway, even assuming that Federer is the best player of all time (which as it happens I don't think he is), you don't know what the future holds. "Who knows what the next generations will hold, which is why there’s always the possibility someone better could come along. Hard to conceive though." Exactly, we don't know what the next generations will hold. Personally, I don't think it's hard to conceive that someone will come alone who is better than Federer, if we go by your thesis regarding Laver. "And if you don’t think professionals are better equipped to evaluate other professionals, well, you’re just insane." Then I'm insane. I would suggest that it is incredibly ignorant to believe that only those who have played at a professional level can evaluate other professionals. "I played tennis at a high level for many years." Were you ever a professional? If you weren't, why should your opinion matter? "The first time I ever saw Roger play on TV he had just broken through the top 50. I called my father right then (also an avid tennis fan) and told him to turn on the tv because I was watching the greatest tennis player I’d ever seen." Josh, you seem to believe that because you 'played tennis at a high level for many years', I should just accept what you say regarding Federer. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Your opinion is no more special than mine or anyone else's. "Trust me, if you haven’t played at a high level, you just can’t understand how incredible his game is. " Trust me, one can. Tennis isn't a mystery where only those who have access to its deepest secrets can understand it. It is perfectly possible to understand how great (or not so great) a player is , without having played at a professional level. "There’s nothing condescending about it" I disagree. Saying things like 'Trust me, if you haven’t played at a high level, you just can’t understand how incredible his game is' is incredinly condescending. Don't get me wrong, it doesn't offend me. Your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's on this site, so if you want to think that, that's fine with me. "’I’d never pretend that my opinion was as valid as a professional in a sport I didn’t play or wasn’t proficient it….THAT would be condescending." It's not about pretending or not, because being a professional does not automatically make one more informed than a non-professional. If a professional feels condescended that a non-professional dare to suggest they know as much, then I would suggest the professional simply get over it. I see no reason why someone who has followed a sport closely has a less valid opinion than someone who played it on a professional level or was talented in it.
josh
Guest
Players of the next era won't be as good because Federer is in such a different class. Who knows what the next generations will hold, which is why there's always the possibility someone better could come along. Hard to conceive though. And if you don't think professionals are better equipped to evaluate other professionals, well, you're just insane. I played tennis at a high level for many years. The first time I ever saw Roger play on TV he had just broken through the top 50. I called my father right then (also an avid tennis fan) and told him to turn on the tv because I was watching the greatest tennis player I'd ever seen. Trust me, if you haven't played at a high level, you just can't understand how incredible his game is. There's nothing condescending about it - I'd never pretend that my opinion was as valid as a professional in a sport I didn't play or wasn't proficient it....THAT would be condescending.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
"Tennis players today are far better than in Laver’s era, even when factoring in the equipment upgrades. They train harder, longer, smarter, and the sport attracts far better athletes these days than it did in previous eras. These are the kinds of comparisons only sportswriters would entertain and consider even remotely valid. I’d bet there are 10 to 20 players playing right now that would make quick work of Laver had they come along in his era…" I disagree that tennis players are 'far better' today than in Laver's era. They may be better athletes, thanks in no small part due to their being full-time professional athletes with superior training regimes, however that doesn't make them better. I have no doubt that Laver & Rosewall, with the same kind of training and time to dedicate to playing tennis, would destroy almost all players playing today. You can't say that it is a comparison that 'only sportswriters would entertain and consider even remotely valid' when you rig the draw in favour of today's players. Either have today's players compete in the 60's with all the disadvantages of the 60's, or have Laver % co play today with all the advantages of today. "It’s no coincidence that when other professional players are asked to name the GOAT, the overwhelming majority point to Federer." Professional players don't automatically know better than non-professional players. The idea that one must have had played a sport in order to be an expert on it is IMO one of the most annoying myths in sports. "I don’t think that folks who haven’t played at a high level (i.e. – sportswriters, etc.) are able to fully appreciate how good he is." I completely disagree. One doesn't have to have played at a high level to appreciate Federer's brilliance, or to have an opinion on him. Non-professional players can appeciate Federer just as much as professional players, in many cases more so. Being a professional player doesn't give you special insight into how good particular players may be, just like in probably any sport. BTW have you played at a high level? Either you have, in which case you are simply being condescending and arrogant, or you haven't, in which case you seem to believe that among non-professional players you are unique. "No one in the history of tennis is even close to Federer’s level, and I’m not sure anyone ever will be again." Aren't you contradicting yourself? If the players of today's era are better than Laver, then why wouldn't the players of the nex era be better than Federer? What makes him so special that he is better than future players when Laver, according to you, isn't as good as today's players? Anyway, I disagree. I think that Laver was not only close to Federer's level, but better. IMO Laver remains the greatest player of all time.