Federer

[maxi_sopez]

Greatest tennis player ever now surely?! also what do you think greatest current sportsmen, imo better than tiger in just pure dominance

[Robsk II]

Legend.

[Deppo]

Glad to see him win. Did anyone see that tosser run on with a banner in the second set? I bet it was the guy who handed Thierry Henry a Barca top when he was playing for Arsenal in the Champions League. I think Federer has a great chance of winning Wimbledon now and toppling Sampras' record, especially with the developments regarding Nadal's knee.

[Saintandy666]

Probably the best ever now though beating Nadal on Clay at Roland Garros would have confirmed it for sure. We shall have to see how the rest of his career goes now to see if he gets the chance to do this. Well done to him.

[Ponty]

Better than Henman even?

[Arizona]

Greatest tennis player ever now surely?! also what do you think greatest current sportsmen, imo better than tiger in just pure dominance

 

By that yardstick, Jenson Button is taking everyone to school.

[saint_stevo]

Tiger is a better sportsman imo, No-one is near him when he is on his game, and that has been true of him throughout his career, the same cannot be said of Federer

[Saintandy666]

Better than Henman even?

 

I don't know whether this sarky comment is directed at me or not because I defended Henman before and got derided and the **** taken out of.(but I shall reply anyway to defend him ). Of course he's better than Henman, not to say Henman wasn't good. Semis at 3 different slams, a few masters titles and being the fourth best player in the world is no easy feat. Henman wasn't the best, but he was still pretty damn good.

[Ponty]

I don't know whether this sarky comment is directed at me or not because I defended Henman before and got derided and the **** taken out of.(but I shall reply anyway to defend him ). Of course he's better than Henman, not to say Henman wasn't good. Semis at 3 different slams, a few masters titles and being the fourth best player in the world is no easy feat. Henman wasn't the best, but he was still pretty damn good.

lol.. No, it wasn't.

[Deppo]

Probably the best ever now though beating Nadal on Clay at Roland Garros would have confirmed it for sure. We shall have to see how the rest of his career goes now to see if he gets the chance to do this. Well done to him.

 

He doesn't need to beat Nadal, IMO. Federer is always there at the final stages of a tournament. Nadal wasn't this time. it doesn't demean his achievement.

[Saintandy666]

lol.. No, it wasn't.

 

I thought not. But yer, I'm not egotistical :smt080

 

I just remembered defending him a while back and then recieving a torrent of abuse for it! I am rather paranoid.

[Hatch]

At the moment Fed is the greatest player ever, in 6 or 7 years time, Nadal will have become the greatest player ever.

[Trader]

Federer may turn out to be the greatest ever - but he's not yet.

 

Rod Laver won 11 Grand Slams - 6 1960-62 and 5 1968-69.

In the intervening years he was a professional so was barred from entering Grand Slams.

He missed 20 slams when he was aged 24-30.

How many more he would have won is anyone's guess but he was totally dominant in tennis.

 

He won all four slams in the same year - twice!

 

A total of nearly 200 tournaments.

 

All that and 27 ATP doubles titles as well.

 

People have very short memories.

[hypochondriac]

The standard was lower then and 3 of the grand slams were played on the same surface

[Trader]

The standard was lower then and 3 of the grand slams were played on the same surface

 

You can only beat what's in front of you on the surface provided.

 

Anyway who's to say the standard was lower?

Sure it was a different game then, but the modern game is all about power and topspin.

 

I've often wondered how a really top serve and volley player like Laver (there aren't any around at the moment) would fare against a 6foot6 baseline slogger - particularly on grass.

[Dicko]

You can't compare eras

 

During a rainbreak at last years Wimbledon, the BBC showed a replay of the 1978 Womens final between Navratilova & Chris Evert - without doubt, two of the greatest women players of all time

 

However, I couldn't believe how slow it was, the Williams sisters would have murdered them

 

So, comparing Federer with Laver is totally unfair

[Deppo]

Also, the sport has grown since the days of Laver, so the playing field is far greater. I also don't think Nadal will overtake Federer's Grand Slam total because of his knee problems partly caused by his full-on style of play.

[St Will]

At the moment Fed is the greatest player ever, in 6 or 7 years time, Nadal will have become the greatest player ever.

 

He won't. In 6 or 7 years time, Nadal won't be able to walk. His knees are screwed....they have been as long as he's been out there - he's had strapping on his knees his entire career. He won't be able to keep his speed up, which will make him very average. He'll probably win 10 slams or something, but won't beat Federer's record.

[Greedyfly]

I find it hard to fathom that people believe he is the greatest ever when he isn't even the greatest currently. It's a no from me.

[chrisobee]

Federer may turn out to be the greatest ever - but he's not yet.

 

Rod Laver won 11 Grand Slams - 6 1960-62 and 5 1968-69.

In the intervening years he was a professional so was barred from entering Grand Slams.

He missed 20 slams when he was aged 24-30.

How many more he would have won is anyone's guess but he was totally dominant in tennis.

 

He won all four slams in the same year - twice!

 

A total of nearly 200 tournaments.

 

All that and 27 ATP doubles titles as well.

 

People have very short memories.

 

Of course the point about Rod Laver is a very valid one though to suggest people have short memories when I suspect far more than 50% of users on here were not even born when he was playing is stretching it a bit far!

 

[sydney_saint]

I find it hard to fathom that people believe he is the greatest ever when he isn't even the greatest currently. It's a no from me.

 

Therefore I vote that Pele, Maradonna and Le Tissier be stripped from the record books as great players because they are no longer capable of playing at the highest level

[saintwarwick]

You can't compare eras

 

During a rainbreak at last years Wimbledon, the BBC showed a replay of the 1978 Womens final between Navratilova & Chris Evert - without doubt, two of the greatest women players of all time

 

However, I couldn't believe how slow it was, the Williams sisters would have murdered them

 

So, comparing Federer with Laver is totally unfair

 

Tbf the Williams sisters would have beaten most male players in this era.

[Trader]

Of course the point about Rod Laver is a very valid one though to suggest people have short memories when I suspect far more than 50% of users on here were not even born when he was playing is stretching it a bit far!

 

 

Tbf I wasn't really talking about people on here but all those ex-pros and TV commentators saying Federer was the best ever.

 

Having said that Sampras wasn't even born when Laver was No.1.

 

And as for this nonsense about the Williams sisters, Justine Henin at 5foot5 and 9 stone didn't have a bad record against them.

 

Size, power and speed is not everything in tennis as some believe.

 

Ivo Karlovic doesn't win many tournaments - and they don't come much bigger or stronger than him.

Edited 13 June, 2009 by Trader

[Greedyfly]

Therefore I vote that Pele, Maradonna and Le Tissier be stripped from the record books as great players because they are no longer capable of playing at the highest level

 

That's not even close to being what I said.

[sydney_saint]

That's not even close to being what I said.

 

All the players I mentioned were no longer the greatest players in the world towards the end of their careers. Sure Federer, who in all honesty is past is prime, is no longer the greatest in the world but he was for a number of years and his record backs this statement up. Now please explain how I misinterpreted you.

[Greedyfly]

All the players I mentioned were no longer the greatest players in the world towards the end of their careers. Sure Federer, who in all honesty is past is prime, is no longer the greatest in the world but he was for a number of years and his record backs this statement up. Now please explain how I misinterpreted you.

 

Uhhh he's 27. No where near past a tennis players prime...IN fact it is his prime. Yet he's being roundly beaten (French Open excluded) by a man who is currently better than him. And it's this short memory thing again....Sure for the last few years Fed has been the man to beat but in all actuality it is only a few years. Before he reached the top he was being beaten by all manor of opponents from Andy Roddick and Lleyton Hewitt to Tim Henman ffs.

 

The three (2 for arguments sake - excluding Le Tiss in the eyes of the popular masses) players you mentioned were, when in there prime (like Federer is now - seems like I have to spell things out for you), at the very top of the game. They were undisputably the best and for the entrire time in which they were playing IN THERE PRIME always were. Federer is/should be in his prime and yet he could well be beaten on three out of four surfaces this year. Is that a little clearer for you.

[Dicko]

Greedyfly, I disagree with you

 

• 1) Federer has won 14 Slams, which ties him Sampras, and will probably overtake him soon
  
• 2) Federer won five consecutive men's titles at Wimbledon, only Borg has also achieved that
  
• 3) Federer holds the open era record for most consecutive US Open titles at five
  
• 4) Federer is the only player in tennis history to win at least five consecutive titles at two different Grand Slam tournaments
  
• 5) Federer's victory at the 2004 US Open was the first time in the open era that anyone had won his first four Grand Slam finals
  
• 6) At the 2007 Australian Open, Federer became only the fourth man in the open era to win a Grand Slam title without dropping a set
  
• 7) At the 2006 Aussie Open, Federer became the first man to win three consecutive Grand Slam titles since Sampras.He repeated the feat the following year, making him the only man to do it twice in the open era
  
• 8. By winning the 2007 Australian Open, Federer became the only male tennis player to win three different Grand Slam tournaments at least three times each]
  
• 9) Federer is the only male player in tennis history to win at least two Grand Slam titles for four consecutive years
  
• 10) Federer is the only male player in tennis history to win three Grand Slam tournaments in a calendar year three different times in his career
  
• 11) Federer won his first 12 Grand Slam finals outside of the French Open, an all-time record
  
• 12) Only Federer , Sampras and Borg have won two different Grand Slam tournaments at least five times
  
• 13) By winning the 2007 Australian Open, Federer won his 6th Grand Slam title in his last 7 attempts, an open era male record
  
• 14) Federer is the only male player in tennis history to win 6 Grand Slam titles in two years , 8 in three years , 11 in four years , 12 in five years. 11 Grand Slam titles in four years is an all-time record, male or female.
  
• 15) Federer has won at least one Grand Slam title for seven consecutive years, trailing only Borg and Sampras who hold the open era male record of eight consecutive years.
  
• 16) Federer has defeated eleven different opponents in Grand Slam finals, an all-time male record.
  
• 17) Federer is the sixth man to win all four Grand Slams
  
• 18. Federer is the only man to reach 20 consecutive Grand Slam semi-finals, and his record of reaching 15 of the last 16 finals, will never be beaten
  

Now try and tell me he's not the greatest of all time

[sydney_saint]

Uhhh he's 27. No where near past a tennis players prime...IN fact it is his prime. Yet he's being roundly beaten (French Open excluded) by a man who is currently better than him. And it's this short memory thing again....Sure for the last few years Fed has been the man to beat but in all actuality it is only a few years. Before he reached the top he was being beaten by all manor of opponents from Andy Roddick and Lleyton Hewitt to Tim Henman ffs.

 

The three (2 for arguments sake - excluding Le Tiss in the eyes of the popular masses) players you mentioned were, when in there prime (like Federer is now - seems like I have to spell things out for you), at the very top of the game. They were undisputably the best and for the entrire time in which they were playing IN THERE PRIME always were. Federer is/should be in his prime and yet he could well be beaten on three out of four surfaces this year. Is that a little clearer for you.

 

Wow what a rude tw*t. Yet I will respond with at least some form of courtesy. Firstly a players prime is surely dependent on the individual. Nadal for instance, due to dodgy knees, is probably currently or just entering his prime. Some players across all sports peak at different times so to say Federer should be currently in his prime is inaccurate. Federer has being the undisputedly the best for 5 years, which is an aweful long time in sport, remember where saints were 5 years ago. So are you saying the length of time a player spends in his prime is what determines a great player? Because, and i may get this wrong because it was before my lifetime, that would exclude Best and maybe even maradonna from great players.

[Trader]

Greedyfly, I disagree with you

 

• 1) Federer has won 14 Slams, which ties him Sampras, and will probably overtake him soon
  
• 2) Federer won five consecutive men's titles at Wimbledon, only Borg has also achieved that
  
• 3) Federer holds the open era record for most consecutive US Open titles at five
  
• 4) Federer is the only player in tennis history to win at least five consecutive titles at two different Grand Slam tournaments
  
• 5) Federer's victory at the 2004 US Open was the first time in the open era that anyone had won his first four Grand Slam finals
  
• 6) At the 2007 Australian Open, Federer became only the fourth man in the open era to win a Grand Slam title without dropping a set
  
• 7) At the 2006 Aussie Open, Federer became the first man to win three consecutive Grand Slam titles since Sampras.He repeated the feat the following year, making him the only man to do it twice in the open era
  
• 8. By winning the 2007 Australian Open, Federer became the only male tennis player to win three different Grand Slam tournaments at least three times each]
  
• 9) Federer is the only male player in tennis history to win at least two Grand Slam titles for four consecutive years
  
• 10) Federer is the only male player in tennis history to win three Grand Slam tournaments in a calendar year three different times in his career
  
• 11) Federer won his first 12 Grand Slam finals outside of the French Open, an all-time record
  
• 12) Only Federer , Sampras and Borg have won two different Grand Slam tournaments at least five times
  
• 13) By winning the 2007 Australian Open, Federer won his 6th Grand Slam title in his last 7 attempts, an open era male record
  
• 14) Federer is the only male player in tennis history to win 6 Grand Slam titles in two years , 8 in three years , 11 in four years , 12 in five years. 11 Grand Slam titles in four years is an all-time record, male or female.
  
• 15) Federer has won at least one Grand Slam title for seven consecutive years, trailing only Borg and Sampras who hold the open era male record of eight consecutive years.
  
• 16) Federer has defeated eleven different opponents in Grand Slam finals, an all-time male record.
  
• 17) Federer is the sixth man to win all four Grand Slams
  
• 18. Federer is the only man to reach 20 consecutive Grand Slam semi-finals, and his record of reaching 15 of the last 16 finals, will never be beaten
  

Now try and tell me he's not the greatest of all time

 

He's not the greatest of all time.

 

There, did it.

 

It was easy.

[hypochondriac]

Uhhh he's 27. No where near past a tennis players prime...IN fact it is his prime.

 

What are you talking about? Every player will have a different prime. You can't just say that 27 is his prime because that's when the majority have it. Federer isn't the majority.

 

Yet he's being roundly beaten (French Open excluded) by a man who is currently better than him.

 

Not when it matters. Look at his grand slams records. Wimbledon last year was hardly a trouncing, it could have gone either way and the same the year before that which Federer won. Was Nadal roundly beaten that year? Course not. Nadal is the best on Clay certainly but does he have the consistency that Federer have to perform when it really matters? I suspect when Nadal's career finishes history will show he is not a successful as Fed.

 

And it's this short memory thing again....Sure for the last few years Fed has been the man to beat but in all actuality it is only a few years.

 

That's just the ramblings of a mad man.

 

Before he reached the top he was being beaten by all manor of opponents from Andy Roddick and Lleyton Hewitt to Tim Henman ffs.

 

Look at his records against these people FFS. I'm not sad enough to look through the records of Sampras and Laver but I am certain that they lost to some crummy opponents in their time as well. EVERY tennis player loses at times in their careers to poor opponents, it's about your overall performance and your performance on the reatest stages.

 

The three (2 for arguments sake - excluding Le Tiss in the eyes of the popular masses) players you mentioned were, when in there prime (like Federer is now - seems like I have to spell things out for you),

 

He's only in his prime in your eyes.

 

at the very top of the game. They were undisputably

 

Comparing footballers and tennis players is idiotic and impossible. Football is a team game, tennis is not. There are too many variables in football to claim that anyone is undisputably the best. The best tennis player of all time is the player who is the most consistent and successful. That's Federer!

 

the best and for the entrire time in which they were playing IN THERE PRIME always were.

 

See above.

 

Federer is/should be in his prime

 

You're wrong.

 

nd yet he could well be beaten on three out of four surfaces this year. Is that a little clearer for you.

 

There can only ever be one winner! Look at the amount of times he has reached the semi and finals of the slams! Equally, he could win Wimbledon and the US again. Will that then make him the greatest ever in your eyes?