Roger Federer breaks British hearts

"Laver’s the best before the Open Era, Federer is the greatest of the Open Era." I would definitely agree with that. IMO Laver was the greatest of all time, however Federer is certainty the best of the Open Era.

Frank - I imagine there'd be quite a lot, actually. Nadal has been thereabouts since 2004, and it's worth noting that Djokovic's rise coincided with a period of time in which Federer was obviously down on form, struggling to cope with familial commitments, age, and a bout with mono. Both players have been able to take advantage of Federer's decreased mobility and fitness with his greater age. Nadal might've been able to fare well against Federer in his prime (the forehand to backhand is always going to be an issue), but I don't think you could say the same about Djokovic. The consistency Federer was able to produce in his heyday was superhuman.

Frank, as others have mentioned it's a bit silly to question how many slams Federer would have won if he was playing Djok and Nadal during those years. Federer is about 5-6 years older than these guys, so of course careers will overlap but you have to keep in mind that Federer is over 30 now, and for all his brilliance, not as consistently great as he used to be. Nadal has always had his measure on clay but it's very even on other surfaces, and very much in favour of Federer on indoor hard courts.

It's actually something of a pity that the British public have been so starved for champions - the hysteria surrounding Murray has detracted from the pretty compelling Federer-comeback narrative - one of the great stories in modern sport in its own right. This was a guy who was considered down and out by a lot of commentators, and to come back and brush aside the completely dominant World no. 1 and then take the final... Now the news is all about Murray, but history's going to remember this more for Federer.

Ye I'm with you Sneaky Pete. He is so good to watch, such a great player and yet a perfect role model.

At end anythng that matters are records and samprass is just there to beg federer please stop now..

Yeah, it's full strength at Wimbledon.

I'm not convinced that Sampras had a winning record over Agassi solely because he was so great. Sampras/Agassi was a match-up of contrasting styles -- Sampras' serve and volley and Agassi's return and baseline game. Nowdays serve and volley may be dead, but in the 90s with the faster courts I always thought Sampras had an advantage over Agassi because of his style. I'm not so sure Ivanisevic was better than the players you mentioned. What's the difference between Goran and Roddick? Roddick had a pretty natural game for Wimbledon even with the slower courts and the ball changes. Sampras really didn't play against that much higher level competition. Federer for example has beaten more top 10 players in his Wimbledon runs than Sampras did. The difference between them wasn't the level of their opposition but the different court speeds, IMO. Of course Federer isn't winning three Grand Slams a year anymore. He's almost 31 and there are two other great players in their primes.

Surprisingly if you take the FO out, the longest consecutive streak Sampras had was 8. Federer has still won 5 GS since 2007,and Nadal has been a force since 2005, sharing 2 GS a piece before 2007. It's rather speculative to say how Federer would've done if they were both around in his early days, just like you could argue would Sampras have had as many Grand Slams if Agassi was at his peak the whole time. You could also argue that Federers high standard has lifted Nadal and Djokovics game so that they have become all time greats, not something that happened with Sampras.

Excellent sledge! Never heard that one before!

'take note suncorp' The difference being that centre court was full of educated, well mannered individuals. Suncorp is overwhelmingly filled with bogans.

Sampras only had 10 consecutive QF appearances because he wasn't great on clay. And admittedly that goes against him. I do admit he occasionally laid an egg, where Federer hasn't. French Open aside, he did occasionally have an early exit etc. I agree mens tennis is harder than ever now, but have you noticed how few GS Federer has won since Nadal and Djokovic? I don't think he'd have 12 Grand Slams if he had to face these guys back in 2003-2007.

I never got why some of the public thought Sampras was boring. Not too many players out there are able to pull off the slam dunk smash that he could. Give me him over Agassi anyday. They called Agassi the Las Vegas showman, but there was nothing showy about his game, or him after he lost his hair.

Agree with you Brian, have often relayed the same points. Not only did he not make a FO final, he only made the semis once, quite often going out early. But the big difference is that he only managed ten consecutive QF GF appearances - Federer has 34 so far - the very model of consistency. Frank says that he won his slams against weak opponents citing Hewitt and Roddick but Sampras won slams against Pioline and Todd Martin - I'd argue that they were weaker than Hewitt and Roddick. To then argue that the above players were not as good as Agassi is correct - not many are, but equally not many are as good as Nadal of Djokovic. It is a shame that Agassi went AWOL and didn't play Sampras at his peak in a GS from the US in 95 to Wimbledon in 99.

- The Sampras/Aggssi rivalry was more one sided than Federer/Nadal because Sampras was so great. - Like it or not, on grass, Goran was a much better player than Hewitt on grass (who won Wimbledon), Roddick, or Safin. In fact everyone was saying Goran would win that year because he kept thundering down aces. Hewitt, Roddick, and Safin were the three world number ones before Federer. I'd also say for his very brief peak at the top, Rafter was better than those three too. - I grant that now mens tennis is as hard as it's ever been. Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic, may end-up being remembered in the top 5 best players in the modern games. In fact I think Federer and Nadal are... Djokovic is catching-up. But funnily enough, Federer isn't running through Grand Slams like he used to. Hmm... - Sampras had some great matches... not as much as Federer, but I recall a couple of great five setters that made me love tennis, like his comeback against Courier at the Aussie Open (2nd most prestigious) when he was 0-2 sets down. Or his famous four-setter against Agassi at the U.S. Open, where all sets went to tiebreakers. - I agree the public didn't find him entertaining. That's a shame. I did. And in a one-on-one match I wouldn't want to judge the difference between Sampras and Federer, because there isn't much between them.

Whether it was deserved or not, the public found Sampras boring. He didn't have the classic matches and great rivalries that other players have had and his style of play didn't excite the public. It was those awful matches with Goran that caused so many of the changes in the Wimbledon surface that we see today. I think you overrate his era a bit and the Agassi rivalry was even more one sided than Federer/Nadal.

I agree with your assessment of Murray. When Hewitt faced a 30 year old Sampras in the 2001 US Open final, he showed that killer big match temperament and totally dominated him. Murray just hasn't been able to do the same in the four slam finals that he has made.

That used to be my criticism of Federer. When he first started winning Grand Slams he was playing people like Hewitt, Safin, and Roddick, who were the former world number ones. They're all good players, but not like Agassi was. Federer won his first few Slams against some very weak opponents compared the Sampras. Mark Philliposis (?), Lleyton Hewitt, Andy Roddick, etc. Sampras was better at winning the close matches, as you said. That's something many people don't remember him for. I saw many Sampras matches where he was down a break in the final set, but found a way out. Federer is like Sampras in that he can find an ace when he needs it, as a kind of relief! But Sampras was better than him at serving, and finding an ace when needed. Sampras was also better at the net. I don't know how he'd go these days at Wimbledon as the courts are much slower, and there are more baseline games. But when Sampras came to the net he grew five inches taller! I also loved Sampras' running forehand. It's sad how history remembers Pete Sampras. He never showed much emotion, wasn't loved like Federer, never won the French Open, and went about things in a business-like fashion. Whether Federer would beat him one-on-one is one thing, but there's no way Federer would dominate him. My opinion is that Federer was more complete, but Pete's strengths were stronger than Federer's (serve, net game, running forehand), and more importantly, Sampras knew how to play to his strengths.

Did anyone notice that as he was getting ready for the presentation Roger Federer slipped a gold Rolex watch on to his wrist. The professional on and off the court, to the end. Andy Murray strikes me as a gifted player who does not have a competitive killer big match temperament. His body language reeks of trying to find excuses for his own poor play under pressure. This lack of emotional resilience is going to make it very hard for him to win a grand slam tennis title. It was noticeable, for instance, that when he started to make mistakes he also started to look across to his box for answers and inspiration. But as John Newcombe pointed out and what Ivan Lendl is trying to teach him, the inspiration and new tactics have to come from himself.

I believe the main difference is beer. Just saying.