Roger Federer is the greatest sportsperson of all time

Oh so your saying Anna Kournikova is more important to tennis putting pumps on seats and Tennis marketing than Lindsey Davenport.. And the casual fans the majority don't appreciate Davenport unlike kournikova, only the tennis tragics and purists, but tennis purists don't make money for tennis..

Jack Kramer was heavy on players having good looks and being markeable. The pro tour consisted mainly of touring many cities and playing a set of exhibition matches, so it was important the players in the match up could draw crowds.. So when he says the complete package he also means more than just tennis. Height and good looks part of the main package, while Laver played attractive tennis he was also very short and didn;t have the moviestar looks of Lew Hoad, and Rosewall the tiny weak looking man with his defensive style, was the hardest sell of all.

Jimmy Connors aged 36 at seasons ends(1988) was ranked 7 in the world… 1989 season end aged 37 he was ranked 14, both remarkable efforts, and in 1991 aged 39 he made the US open semi finals… But Fed takes the cake, winning 2 grand slams at aged 36 is huge.

John, you're right as far as H2H between Fed/Nadal. However, Fed leads 5-1 at AO and 5-2 at USO in titles, while 6-0 at year-end final, which comes out to 16-3 for 'big' hardcourt wins. This is one reason why H2H is often meaningless when comparing players. Also, Fed plays through injuries most of the time, except last half of last year when he turned 35, which is ancient for tennis. Nadal usually wouldn't do this. This doesn't necessarily mean Nadal wasn't as tough as Fed though a strong case would say that's true, but that Fed got a lot more losses because he would do this, and some of them against Nadal. I remember Fed was injured before one of their matches at Indian Wells, which was scheduled after 1 or 2 ladies' matches which weren't played because one of the women in each match decided to withdraw. Fed should've withdrawn, but I'm sure he didn't want the night crown to not see any tennis at all, especially a match between him and Nadal.

Sorry, but "When they play no really knows who is going to win on pretty well any surface and that seems a good indicator that they are pretty well on par" is very debatable. On clay, Nadal has a 13 - 2 record against Federer while on grass Federer has a 2 - 1 winning record (only grass court matches were consecutive Wimbledon finals in '06,'07 & '08) but 11 Wimbledon finals to Nadal's 5 is pretty telling. Nadal hasn' t made a Wimbledon final since 2011 and only reached round 4 twice in that time. Roger has played in three of last four Wimbledon finals so the evidence on grass is very strong for a Federer win. Hard court is where the mystery is real. Roger holds a slim 10 - 9 lead over Rafa on hard courts. Only a fool would bet against Nadal on clay and betting against Federer on grass seems most unwise. On a hard court surface, however, flip a coin.

The Jack Kramer analysis is very compelling, except that Nadal beat Federer more often that not after that time, even if a lot of them were on clay. It seems to me that Federer is less injury prone that Nadal and that contributes in some senses to his better overall record. Probably at least two slams. When they play no really knows who is going to win on pretty well any surface and that seems a good indicator that they are pretty well on par. Federer has a better serve and volley (and all round game) than Nadal but his top spin is so incredible, it seems to even things out. What is interesting about the latter day Federer is the absolute ruthlessness about how he goes about his work. I don't see much between them and I look forward to their next encounter. Stay well gents!

Not only do the sports experts consider Roger Federer a greater sportsperson than Serena Williams, but Federer is greater in men’s tennis than Serena is in women’s tennis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_of_All_Time As my first post shows, the Laureus World Sports Awards are the most prestigious sports awards in the world. The Laureus World Sports Academy comprises global sports legends who understand the top sportspeople and sports performance better than anyone else. Since 2000, this distinguished panel of great sports legends have voted each year on the most outstanding sportsman and sportswoman, nominated by top sports journalists around the world. Federer has won the Laureus Sportsman of the Year Award an overall record four times against a tougher field of nominees. Serena has won the Laureus Sportswoman of the Year Award three times against a weaker field of nominees. In their expert judgment and wisdom, the world’s great sports sports legends seem to consider Federer a relatively more outstanding sportsperson than Serena. In the links below, compare the records of all the greatest men’s players: Federer, Laver, Rosewall, Nadal, Sampras, Djokovic, Borg, Gonzalez, Kramer, Lendl, Tilden, Connors, Budge, McEnroe, Vines, Agassi, etc. Scroll to “Grand Slam Majors” and keep scrolling. It is clear that Federer dominates almost all statistical categories. - All-Time tennis records since 1877 – men's singles: http://tinyurl.com/he878fz - Open Era tennis records since mid-1968 – men's singles: http://tinyurl.com/y73twhjk Now compare the records of all the greatest women players: Margaret Court, Steffi Graf, Serena, Navratilova, Evert, Wills-Moody, etc. Serena is not as dominant in women’s tennis history as Federer has been in men’s tennis history. - All-Time tennis records since 1884 – women’s singles: http://tinyurl.com/y7ph2o2z - Open Era tennis records since mid-1968 – women's singles: http://tinyurl.com/ybm858kl Regardless, Serena’s achievements cannot be compared Federer’s achievements because women’s tennis has a trade barrier to preclude the men from competing against the women on the WTA Tour. The Women’s Tennis Association rulebook explicitly bans male players from competing on the WTA Tour! The WTA tournaments are open only to women tennis players who comply with the WTA’s “Gender Participation Policy” (which defines the "gender eligibility requirements for entry into and participation in WTA Tournaments"). Such sexism and gender discrimination against men invalidates any hypocritical claim that women’s tennis should be treated as being on par with and equal value to men’s tennis. The men’s ATP rulebook does not have such gender rules to block a woman aged over 15 from entering an ATP event. The ATP is the Association of Tennis Professionals, not the Men's Tennis Association. However, Serena and the other top female tennis players have been unwilling to play on the elite ATP tour under the same rules as the men. Compared to men’s tennis, women’s tennis does not require substantially the same degree or amount of skill, fitness, athleticism and effort to perform. In 1998, after Serena was thrashed 1-6 by a drunk and cigarette-smoking ATP No. 203 Karsten Braasch (his ranking slipped to 344 two weeks later), Serena admitted: "I didn't know it would be that difficult. I played shots that would have been winners on the women's circuit and he got to them very easily." As coach Toni Nadal observed: Serena lacks the shots, fitness and mobility to compete against the top 300 men. Former ATP No. 3 David Ferrer and former WTA No. 51 Anabel Medina Garrigues both concurred (Read "Serena würde gegen jeden Top-300-Spieler verlieren"). At the Slams, men’s tennis is best-of-five sets because the standard was set at the very first tennis tournament in history: the Gentlemen Singles Championship at The Championships, Wimbledon in 1877. When the women’s singles event was added to Wimbledon in 1884, it was best of three sets. If anything, it is the women who should rise up to the five-set standard set by the men, not the other way around. As for Federer, he has probably won the most best of three set matches and has the best three set win-loss record in ATP history. As for doubles on the ATP Tour, Federer has won 8 doubles titles from 14 finals, sometimes partnering weak low-ranked players like Yves Allegro, Marco Chiudinelli and Dominic Hrbaty. Nadal won 11 titles from 15 finals. In Davis Cup, Federer has played 22 doubles matches because his Swiss team relied on him winning his two singles matches plus the doubles match. Nadal has played only 9 doubles matches for Spain. Nadal plays more doubles matches on the ATP Tour to gain match practice for his singles matches – this was what John McEnroe used to do as well, on a more frequent basis, as he hated to practice. Federer does not need the match practice and, during tournaments, his practice sessions are lighter than the other top players.

The female athlete of the 1930's-50's Babe Didrikson was remarkable, She was a bit like a female version of Jim Thorpe, good at everything.. Bo Jackson of course, if we are talking all round greatest athletes, often the people who are good or even great at two deserve to be the best not just the individual people, which is why Jackie Joyner Kersie in heptathlon is great, and Daley Thompson another all time great.. Jakie Joyner won individual gold in the long jump too. But athletes like Bo Jackson/Dion Sanders/the Thornett brothers from Australia/yes Anthony Mundine/Jim Thorpe/Babe Didrikson/ all have to be rated very highly in all time great stuff.. Jerry Rice was a great wide reciever, and Lisa Leslie in Basketball was great as was Cheryl Miller. Im sure there's some great winter Olympic athletes we here have missed, that many in Europe and US/Canada would know about... There's been some great figure skaters over the years and skiers... Also in Diving Greg Lougainis was great.

Disagree with your serena theory. You say 5-sets to 3, your making up rules as you go. If the rules of men's tennis were changed to 3, whose to say it wouldn't be a power game and guy like Phillipouous/Greg Rusedski/Becker/Richard Krajeck/marit safin/sampras/nadal/tsonga wouldn't dominate. The preparation would change and the gam would be even more a power sport then, if players were training for 3 set tennis all year round in men's. You could say 3-set tennis helped the serena's and navratlaova's and seles types, and nullified chris evert(she was very dominant already) or Hennin being more dominant. Plus serena was often playing in 3 ties in a grand slam, singles/doubles/mixed, three comps in the one tournament and still would often win the singles, Maybe one slam she won all 3 in the tournament, She's certainly one a doubles and a singles title in the same tournament.,, So the Endurance argument backing Fed vs Serena is flawed. Lleyton Hewitt used to play singles and doubles in slams a lot as did Johnass Bjorkman. At one wimbledon in the 2000's(modern era) in 2006, Bjorkman made the men's semi finals in singles and the wimbledon quarter finals all this at age 34. He had to play 11 matches over like 12 days. All this in the era of men playing 5-sets in both singles and doubles... And as said this is in the modern era, not the 1950's, 60's 70's or 80's or even 90'. This is post 2000, Jonnes Bjorkman was doing this in doubles/singles efforts.. And Serena and venus have been doing the same thing. And women's era weaker, well Serena had Hennin for ages, Clisters, and Venus and Sharapova, and Davenport or Azerenka, I don't see that as weak.. Plus she's still been winning slams after aged 30 when you lose some zip naturally...

Roger Federer and Rod Laver on how to play one another - Brisbane International 2014 on tube will not settle the matter but might be worth a squiz

Defender, you mean?

You lost me on Serena, I respect what she's done but comparatively the level of women's tennis is poor. I think what sets Federer apart is his ability to play his best on the biggest stage in the biggest moments. With everything is on the line he rises to play his best, most fearless tennis.

3-meausrments- success/longevity/mass appeal, I'd add a 4th the generation or era you played in e.g. participation rates, and yes he's well up there. Bradman's average is so remarkable in the 99 batting average back then would be like about 115 today. Imagine someone like Sachin Tendulkar having a test batting average of 115, it puts the Don's achievements into context e.g. 99 in an era of uncovered wickets/no helmets/heavy bats/long boundaries and no ropes etc. And Don Bradman faced world class fast bowling and spin bowling to.. But then again Don played cricket when basically only 4 countries were good at it (OZ/Eng/South Africa/NZ)... I'd still say Serena Willaims is greater than Fed. The thorn in Fed's greatness is his lack of doubles achievements. Rafa has done well in doubles, and Serena and Martina Navratalova have great doubles records... Soccer has to rate highly in that so many people play. That's why to me Zidane has huge credit points. He was dominant in the modern era when soccer was huge in the 90's-2000's.. Wayne Gretsky's stats are awesome too. For mine the best would be that I can think off. 1) Don Bradman 2) Michael Phelps 3) Jackie Joyner Kersie 4) Usain Bolt 5) Serena Williams 6)Martina Navratalova 7)Steffi Graff 8)Rod Laver 9) Fed 10) Wayne Gretzky 11)Michael Jordan 12)Kelly Slater 13)Sergi Bubka 14)Bo Jackson 15)Zidane 16)Ken Rosewell 17)Rafa 18)Floyd Mayweather 19) Mark Spitz 20) Carl Lewis ps: I know squash tragics will bemoan this list e.g. why I left out Jahangir Khan/Heather Mckay but put Bubka/Kelly Slater in the list etc. Surfing in the 90's onwards had more appeal than what squash ever had.. And Pole Vault is not mainstream but a famous Olympic sport and Bubka went around forever(longevity), 80's/90's/2000/s...

Jack Kramer was best qualified to assess the best tennis player the world has ever seen. Rod Laver ranks Kramer the second-best player from the pre-1968 era (From “Rod Laver's Top 10 from Past and Present players” ). Bud Collins called Jack Kramer “the most important man in the history of tennis”: Kramer was a great player (who practiced or played with the greats from the 1930s to 1960s (Bill Tilden, Don Budge, Pancho Gonzales, Lew Hoad, Ken Rosewall, Rod Laver, etc.); he promoted and ran the professional tour before the Open Era; he fought for tennis to be open to professionals; and he co-founded the ATP in 1972. In 2007, Jack Kramer said that Roger Federer was the best player he had ever seen: “as someone who is better placed than most to analyse players through the ages, he is ready to anoint Roger Federer as the best he has seen. 'I thought Ellsworth Vines and Don Budge were pretty good,' he says. 'And Gonzalez and Hoad could play a bit, too, but I have never seen anyone play the game better than Federer. He serves well and has a great half-volley. I've never known anyone who can do as many things on a court as he can.' (From "Jack The Lad" ) In 2008, Todd Woodbridge wrote: “Is Roger Federer the best of all time? Yet recently I had reason to say Federer is the best singles player to have played the game. Just before Christmas, I had the opportunity to interview American Jack Kramer about his life in tennis… Nearing the end of our chat, I broached the subject of Federer and asked if he compared with the greats of Kramer's era. Federer is tied with Roy Emerson on 12 grand slam titles and looks set to pass him on Sunday week. You would think Pete Sampras's record of 14 titles looks likely to tumble soon, too. Having played against and watched every champion since the 1930s, I thought there was no one better credentialled than Kramer to answer the question. Kramer said Don Budge, Gonzales or Hoad might have been the equal of Federer if they had been able to use Federer's racquet. Yet he had never seen any player do more with a ball than Federer. Federer, Kramer said, was the only player he had seen with the complete package; he is a fantastic offensive player, a super server and can play defence. We all have our dream match-ups we would have loved to see play against each other in their prime. Mine would be Rod Laver and Federer playing on Centre Court at Wimbledon. Kramer's is Gonzales taking on Federer using the same racquets. Kramer finished the interview by saying Federer was simply the best player he had seen play the game. With credentials as good as his, who are we to argue?” (From “Worm turns Federer's way in the debate) In 2007 and 2008 (and until 2013), Federer had been using a smaller-head and technological backward racquet compared to the rest of the men’s ATP tour. Had Federer in 2007 and 2008 been using his current larger head and more advanced racquet, the standard of his play would have been even higher!

Actually correct about James. He's only 3-5 in the Finals, and has been outplayed by several players who have no business outplaying him. He also has mentally checked out several times before and often coasts in games not giving full effort even in the playoffs, which he's admitted to, btw. Individual sports much different than team sports. But, the biggest stage in tennis is Wimbledon. Fed now owns the most Wimby titles all-time, while going 8-3 in Finals. In all 3 losses, he played extremely well. In 2 of the losses, he was an 'old man' in tennis years, too. That's just a bit different than James' 'big stage' results. If we count overall GS Finals, he stands alone with 19 going 19-10 in Finals. If we include the year-end final, which is essentially the playoffs like in basketball, he's 25-14 in Finals. I think it's safe to say Fed has maximized his ability to the fullest. James obviously hasn't come close to doing this.

I think Federer is the most personally charming and even possessed of the more noble characters and generosity of spirits of tennis players of all time and maybe one of the best three with Laver and Gonzales. Maybe Borg as well. But these are not relevant criterion to establish "Now that we can all comfortably admit that the Swiss maestro is the best tennis player the world has ever seen" As for greatest sportsperson, if we are looking at this kind of rubbery criteria, then I would be looking at Jesse Owens who overcame incredible odds of racism in a historically significant way. If the war did not intervene he might have had a record like Bolts.

Federer has won the most prestigious sports award in the world -- the Laureus World Sports Award for Sportsman of the Year a record four times (out of six nominations). Lebron James was nominated only two times (never won) and Messi was nominated five times (never won). Maradona played in an era before these awards began in 2000. Based on the Laureus awards, the greatest sportsperson or athlete in the 21st century narrows down to Federer or Usain Bolt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laureus_World_Sports_Award_for_Sportsman_of_the_Year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laureus_World_Sports_Award_for_Sportswoman_of_the_Year The sports legends of the Laureus World Sports Academy are the the distinguished panel of global sports experts who vote each year on the most outstanding sportsman, nominated by top sports journalists around the world. They understand sports better than anyone else. See who they are in the link below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laureus_World_Sports_Awards Kevin Ferrie has a compelling argument on why "Roger Federer has elevated himself above his peers to be the outstanding sportsman of the era" http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/15421816.Roger_Federer_has_elevated_himself_above_his_peers_to_be_the_outstanding_sportsman_of_the_era/

Are you his defendant ?