Roger Federer clinches eighth Wimbledon title

Soderlings best success came from clay - 2 FO finals - to lose to Fed and Nadal - not bad going. Warwinka has a SF, F and won the FO, so obviously he's OK on clay, you would think he played a bit of it coming from Switzerland. Both are far better clay players than Sampras ever was - he only got to the SF once. As for Sampras overwhelming Laver, they're two completely different eras - would Sampras overwhelm him with a woden racquet, as Rory states? Would he even overwhelm Laver on clay if Laver had grown up with power racquets - assuming Laver would be better than Soderling and Warwinka, who would easily beat Sampras on clay.

Doubt Sampras beats Laver if he uses a timber racquet.

Whether Borg was supposedly favored only once at USO during 3 clay years is irrelevant, and highly debatable. That makes me question his status even more if he's having that much trouble transitioning from different clay surfaces, which are all much slower than any hard/grass surface. I highly doubt Sampras is losing every match on clay to Laver. As we see today some, power players like Soderling/Wawrinka can have a lot of success on clay where you'd think clay would be their worst surface or at least much surface than hardcourt for them. Sampras was definitely much better than Wawrinka/Soderling could ever dream of, and even though he didn't grow up on clay, his power game would overwhelm Laver, and much like Isner, the slower clay would allow him more time for returning, especially with a slower server like Laver, who'd what, top out at 110 maybe today. Laver would have little chance on fast surfaces vs Sampras. Serve/volley doesn't work today. Laver would get eaten alive if he tried, especially since he was only 5-8. Other than as surprise tactics, except occasionally moreso on grass, or with guys with limited movement/baseline skills like Muller/Karlovic, who still have almost no chance vs the top guys, it's not going to work. And you have to have an awesome serve to begin with, too.

Borg was only the favourite once when it was played on green clay, Jimmy Connors was the No. 1 seed the other times, and dare say would've been favourite the other time as well as the US open was his fortress. We'll have to disagree over clay, although I don't rate it that highly, but higher than you do. Sampras would've lost every match to Laver on clay and he may have been troubled on other surfaces although his serve may have seen him through. Hard to compare different eras, not forgetting in that era most were able to serve volley so much better than players in the Sampras and Fed era and guys like Rosewall were also good defenders and returners.

Who's advantage is it then? You really think a different clay makes someone else a favorite over Borg? Clay is important, but compartively to hard/grass, it's definitely much less important, even with more tourneys than grass. And look at the career of Sampras, and then imagine if guys like Fed/Djoker never played one match on clay. Nadal/Borg only reached top 5ish status because they were able to Wimby multiple times(5 consecutive time for Borg). Nadal has backed up his play on all surfaces and vs Djoker/Fed some, too, plus extremely dominant on clay. Laver is only in the mix relative to what he did for his era. He wouldn't come close to guys like Sampras/Fed today.

The clay at the US was green clay which plays faster than the usual clay, so not to Borgs advantage. I would place more weight on clay, as there are still many tournaments played on it. I would put Laver in the mix for grass court player (Navratolova if women were included.) and would also note that the grass has been slowed down compared to earlier times, being faster definitely helped Sampras and would've helped Federer, although he learnt to adapt to it.

Yes, Borg did fairly well on hardcourt, but still never won. He also failed to capitalize on winning the USO any of the 3 years it was played on clay. He only won 2 GS, had a short career. Lucky for him almost his entire career was played in his prime. Every player is different when their prime starts. His started earlier and in an era when teenagers could dominate more, which we haven't seen for a long time in today's game. His main competitor was McEnroe, who played Borg very tough, but I can't see McEnroe doing much in today's era, which is one reason why I can't put Borg higher than 4th of 5th all-time at best. That's not quite fair to Sampras. Comparing eras is hard to do, but must be done if comparing players across eras. Sampras was easily the best player of his era, and I can only see him doing much better if he played 3 GS on grass each year. Fed is probably the only grass player better than him, and he's probably a top 3 player at worst on hardcourt. Clay just isn't as important. Sampras/Djoker still top 5-6 at worst even if neither played one match on clay, while Fed still GOAT without needing any matches played on clay. Sampras held the all-time GS record and weeks at #1 until Fed/Nadal came along. He was also #1 all-time at Wimby(which is still easily the most prestigious tourney) and #1 all-time at year-end final, until Fed has now surpassed him for both. The USO is now probably the 2nd most prestigious tourney, and he's tied for #1 all-time in titles there, too. We agree completely on the H2H stuff, glad to see some people understand it. Borg/McEnroe are tied 7-7, though no matches on clay. Fed/Nadal have played roughly half of their matches on clay. Nadal has the luxury of having many more clay opportunities. It's unfortunate grass has went away so much, though an extra week of grass season this year, and Wimby still remains.

Borg did make 3 finals and a QF on hardcourt, the only times he played hardcourt in a GS, so that's pretty impressive (and he retired very early), and Laver, as you say, never had the chance. Lendl had a pretty good record, but wasn't a natural grass courter, and did everything he could to improve, whereas Sampras knew there wasn't much chance on clay and his record is pretty average at best and included a few 1st round losses. If there were more grass tourneys, then I would rate Sampras higher, but that is no longer the case. If Roger was like Sampras on clay then his record would be superior to Nadal H2H, which shows the crazy logic some people use - his H2H record is inferior to Nadal because he was so good on clay.

Clipper, I understand what you're saying. But, Lendl did make 2 Finals and 5 other SF at Wimby, though. That's pretty good for a non-grass player. While Sampras made 1 SF and 3 other QF at the FO. Playing well on all surfaces does matter, but isn't necessary. Laver/Borg never won a GS on hardcourt, though Laver never had the chance but still, and each are clearly in top 6-7 at worst all-time. Sampras was regarded by most as GOAT before Fed came around. I know you probably think Laver was and many others would as well, but just think what Sampras would've done playing 3 GS on grass each year. And being 6-1 compared to just 5-8 Laver. Nadal is very well-rounded but comparatively to Fed, not close, and I'd put Djoker ahead of him still. Having 15 GS is amazing, but when you see 10 at the FO, that just doesn't stack up as well. If Fed never played one match on clay, he'd still easily be considered the GOAT, actually even moreso, since he'd be winning the H2H vs Nadal, so the few naysayers couldn't use that against him anymore.

express34texas - thinking about it again, I can see your point of view. It was more to illustrate that the 3 players are very good all round as opposed to Llendl, who was no grass court player, even though he tried everything, and Sampras who was hopeless on clay.To rank players you have to take into account how well they do on all surfaces.

Djoker not top 10? Wow. I think Craig likes minimalize Fed's achievements, severly underrating Djoker would be one way of doing that. Djoker is top 10 all-time on each and every surface, the all-time leader at the AO, and #2 all-time at year-end final. I'd be interested to hear who these 10 players are that better than Djoker. I don't put Djoker much lower than Nadal at worst. I disagree slightly with clipper and think he's actually a better all-around player than Nadal. Nadal is only better on clay, and Djoker has still won 7 of their last 13 meetings on clay, too.

Johnno, not much Nadal could do about his injuries. He doesn't have the skills that Fed has. He has to play his style to win, which results in longer grind-it-out matches and more injuries. And Laver's not close to Fed. He might be somewhat close skill-wise to Fed possibly though he wouldn't be able to serve/volley today so his preferred style wouldn't really help him much today, but athletically at 5-8 not so much.

Well, each to their own - I could see an argument for lower than 5, but not in the top 10 would be stretching it a bit. The only other player with an all round record in the last 30 years would be Agassi (other than Fed and Nadal of course), and I wouldn't place him above Djokovic.

Djokovic would be lucky to crack my top 10.

So where would you place Federer, Nadal and Djokovic?

3 of the top 5 players of all time? That's a gee up right?

I tend to agree Chris - you just need a dominant player and a weaker era and it's quite possible. To play in this era with 3 of the top 5 players of all time and still get 19 is quite an achievement.

Federer is the true legend of the game. To win two grand slam titles at the age of 35 is an amazing achievement. An US open win would be the icing on the cake.

It's awesome to see Federer's renaissance this year. I remember, about 6 years ago when Federer first list his #1 ranking after being there for such a long time and he had a bit of a barren period of not winning any slams, so many people kept saying he should just retire. But he's just kept working hard on his game, looking for anything he can do to improve, changed racquets, hired different coaches and just kept working and working, and now, this year, we are seeing this pay off, as some of the other top players are struggling, Fed's just back to his best. Would love to see him get that tally into the 20's. Though I don't like it when people say things like "something that's unlikely to ever be matched". If it's possible for one player to do it now, why should we think that it's impossible that another player will come along and match it or break it. I remember commentators talking about some of Ian Thorpe's records suggesting "they might never be beaten", but none of his WR still stand. It's the sort of thing that's thrown around way too often. It's a great achievement, and it will be an amazing achievement for whoever manages to come along and match, or even surpass it in the future if that happens.

Just a great. I used to think Pete Sampras was great and he still is, but Fed takes the word great to whole new levels.. Just a great lost for words. Oh and stuff like injuries, you can only play what's in front of you.. Novak Andy Murray injured not Fed's fault.. Fed has played a bit over 1400 matches and never retired hurt in a match, Novak has played 1000 a bit over and retired 13 times, says something about how Fed looks after his body and manages his body. Rafa could learn a thing or too about that to, he's withdrawn 8 times in a match and often has longer injury lay offs than Fed coz he pushes his game to hard at times, where as Fed manages his body and plays a way that puts less stress on the body often... The guy is the best tennis player of the Open era and only Laver I can think off that can match him as best of all time in men's tennis. Fed is a modern day great what a star...