To be considered "the greatest ever" one­ would assume that person can beat anyone else. Well, I­ don't think Federer can beat Borg at his peak in­ Wimbledon. I think Federer will just be evenly matched­ against Sampras and McEnroe at their peak at the US­ Open, and I think Nadal and Kuerten can blow him out of­ the water at the French.

Federer is the Greatest of all time,end of story.

Lets face it Nadal is just about finished due to the­ hard running and hard swinging he has to do to compete­ with the more talented players that sort of just glide­ around and don't beat their bodies as much and you­ can bet players like Nadal and the Williams sisters who­ are forced to use this technic to stay in the game and­ even though it's been quite lucrative through the­ years they will be in pain and discomfort later in­ years and wind up giving a lot of their winnings to­ doctors down the road and in my opinion I enjoy­ watching a player like Federer more because he has­ mastered grace and skill of a champion and doesn't­ have to play or act like a caveman or barbarian to­ win////

No Pippa, Perry, Budge and Emerson won on 2 not 3­ diffrent surfaces. The US Open was then on grass.

is the best , with 15 grand slam title it will be the­ greatest

I remember a comment Agassi made about Roger Federer­ after he was beaten by him at the US open,he said That­ he always made you play on the edge, that he at that­ time had no weaknesses you could attack, that with­ Sampras if his serve was off you knew you had a chance,­ but RF had the all round game. He said that Federer was­ the best he had ever played against. I think in this­ goat argument, we must go back to the game prior to­ Federer, there was no-one on the circuit with the­ flair, grace and skills he possessed, but then Nadal­ brought extra strength, agility and speed to the game.­ The perfect player would be a combination of them both,­ but whose game would I prefer to watch? Give me Fed­ every time, at the height of his pomp probably around 3­ years ago he was almost invincible, not because as some­ people have said other players were rubbish, but simply­ that his consistently high level of tennis had never­ been seen before. Nadal is a great player, but it was­ Agassi once again who said he hoped Nadal was not­ writing cheques his body could not cash, these injuries­ will heal but how many more can he take before he is­ weakened by them both mentally and physically.I think­ the time is coming where domination by one player will­ cease for a while and the likes of Murray, Del Potro,­ Monfils etc will battle it out for titles. I do not­ think the argument merely revolves around titles­ either, although sampras has many titles some of his­ games to my mind were not brilliant to watch. As­ somebody who lived in Wimbledon in my youth I saw a­ great many of his matches, the grass was much faster­ then, long rallies almost unheard of as he slammed down­ ace after ace, yes a skill in itself but perhaps not­ the only measure of a great player. I do not think one­ can quantify anyone as the goat but for myself­ Federer's game elevated the sport from either serve­ and volley play or clay court rallies to an all round­ game encapsulating the best of both.

Cheers backhouse M, oh for the record I'am actually­ a big Nadal fan by the way! That has not come across in­ our discussions but I always support him when he plays­ (apart from against Federer of course) I love watching­ all their matches on all surfaces. It would be great to­ see them in another Wimbledon final. last two were­ amazing!

See you around mate

Good analysis, Tyrone. Maybe i'm slightly­ exaggerating that Nadal would hardly ever lose, just­ meant it would show how great a player he is as a­ rallyer like you say (even though i think he shows that­ enough now!) Yeah i agree on a lot of your points.­ Nadal's style of play, even though that's whet­ i like about him is taxing on his body and difficult to­ keep repeating. Sometimes wish he would step it up and­ be more aggressive but that's not his game, he­ prefers to wear players down and it can be difficult­ alter when that's what you've been doing for so­ long. Federer's game is much more economical and­ the reason why he has been so consistent and relatively­ injury free. i'm hoping for another federer nadal­ final although i like murray as well (being British). i­ hope it's a good tournament with the big guns­ making the final stages (Nadal's participation­ pending). thanks for replying, probably talk to you­ again on other articles.

Yes backhouse M it has been fun! I have actually learnt­ some things from you! If everyone served under-arm!! ha­ ha ha I have never ever thought about that! Interesting­ though!

Strongly disagree that that Nadal would hardly­ lose if they all served underarm but thats another­ argument!

With regard Nadal being the best lets­ simplify the argument. Say Federer retires now with 14­ slams (I think he has a good chance to win more if he­ still plays though) Nadal would have to at least match­ the slam total and win the U.S open to be considered on­ a similar level. However if you he won the Grand slam­ (in a year) and dominated thoroughout the WHOLE YEAR­ (not just clay, grass and 1 or 2 minor hard court­ tournaments) then surpassed Fedrerers total then I­ would consider him the better player . A big factor­ would obviously be their head to head record. However I­ still think Federer would always be the more skillfull­ all round player. Nadal though is the better rallyer­ and retuner of the ball. He also has a much stronger­ mentality and does not fall to pieces like Roger when­ an opponent (I mean Nadal!!)keeps at him at him­ despite playing his best Tennis. Difference between­ being having more Tennis skills (Roger) and being able­ to play and win matches (Nadal)

However I do not think­ Nadal has the game to dominate the tour like Roger did.­ He also like Pete lacks the consistency. If he gets to­ 14 slams that will be some feat. However I think his­ game is being more disected now he has reached such a­ high level (and is staying there!) before you­ couldn't anaylse him because he kept getting better­ and better. Now he can be studyed better and I think­ opponents will figure him out easier. He will still win­ but he won't be as suprising and unpredictible. If­ you saw the tactics Roger used agaisnst him at the­ Madrdid open were different to what he usually does.­ Soderling employed som eof those tactics as well. Also­ will Nadals body hold up to what he puts it though? Who­ knows

will add one more comment just to end on good terms.­ had a little bit of a think and yes sport does not work­ in the way i have said. still think Sampras best game­ is the best but never mind that now that's not what­ i wanted to talk about. it is about consistency, i­ guess, so Federer would be the ideal choice. do think­ that his rivalry with nadal is an important factor­ though with many critics thinking it now means niether­ player can be mentioned without the other. i think if­ tennis didn't involve the serve (say they had to­ serve underarm or something like that) then Nadal would­ hardly ever get beat. Anyways, suppose that is not the­ point as i've said tennis has a serve and­ that's the end of it. Just curious though, under­ what circumstances would it take for you to consider­ Nadal to be the greatest (what does he have to do­ before he retires?) yeah it has been interesting, good­ fun!

Also how many times did Pete win 3 grand slams in a­ year??? Roger has done it 3 times. In fact how many­ times has even won it twice in a year? Not man exactlyy­ has he? Also it took him much longer to win 14 slams­ then Roger.

Well I can keep discrediting Pete but I­ think I have made it clear. Even if you think Sampras­ would beat a prime Federer at least admit Federer is­ the more skillfull player (again Sampras himself said­ this!!)

Again prime for prime I find it likely­ Fedrerer would win more matches then Sampras.

Listen­ to the statistical evidence and the experts!! Pete was­ not as good as you think he was. Again Agassi and the­ others should know as they played both in their primes.­ Again Agassi played Pete 34 times! Still thought­ Federer was better though? Think about that.

It's­ been interesting, Your being stuborn and delusional­ backhouse M but at least this little exchange has­ actually convinced me further that pete was not as good­ as I remembered. I like Pete but he was too robotic and­ too much about power. Roger plays sublime tennis­ beatifull on the eye. I also think he is a much better­ player then Pete. I think he has the beating of him on­ ALL surfaces. He already did once on grass too­ rememeber?

I think you'll eventually come around­ if Roger keeps winning though backhouse M. Especially­ if he starts to beat Nadal more consistently.

Well­ good bye and to answer your question yes I think Murray­ has the potential to be a very special player. His­ aloofness and supposed anti-english comment a while­ back is what divides some people I think.

see ya.

Ahh backhouse M it has been interesting, also fogot to­ add remember Sampras against Philiposisis Wimbledon­ 1999. Philipoussis was battering him until he had to­ retire 2nd set. All the commentators agreed Mark would­ have 99% of won that match had he not had to pull out.­ Even Pete said afterward 'I dodged a bullet out­ there'. Meaning he knew how lucky he was.­ Philipoussis also beat a prime Sampras 1996 in the 3rd­ round at the Australian open. He also beat sampras at­ the French open 1st round 2000. Guess also who he said­ was better player backhouse m??? Not pete!

the point­ is Sampras at his best was very vulnirible thoughout­ the year. It was not a suprise to see him go out of the­ first round to a nobody on a hard court tounament.­ Federer however was amzingly consistent by comparison.­ I remember at the Paris open 1998 (I used to be huge­ Rusedski fan) where Rusedski beat Sampras the defending­ champion in straight sets. Agaisn Sampras was the­ undisputed number 1 in the world. There are so many­ times sampras was beaten by lesser people during the­ year compared to Federer. Also remember what Connors­ said after 2005 U.S Open final NO-ONE can beat Federer­ when he plays he best throughout the WHOLE match­ no-one. Not even Pete.

There you have it. For the­ record as has been said I think if Sampras played­ Federer on grass at their primes 10 times Federer would­ win at least 6 out of 10. On hard court 7 and clay­ perhaps 9. Petes good but not as good as Roger.

Also­ when Roger beat Pete at Wimbledon pete would go on to­ reach the U.S open final that year and win it roughly­ 15 months after their match. Federer would not even get­ past a grand slam quater final for 2 years! I think­ it's likely to say that pete was much closer­ (defending champion too remember?) to his best then­ Roger was but Roger still won!!

Just reminding you. I­ think if they played in the same era Roger would win­ more matchs then Pete. Also Roger is a better hard­ court player. 8 hard court sla

you make your argument based on success and all round­ game and like i've said if you look at it like that­ then you're right to think of Federer as the best.­ if you look at it in other ways then you will have­ other ideas. i understand Sampras did not have similar­ success in certain areas but how i look at it is that­ Sampras (again not on clay) had the game that was more­ attacking than Federer, therefore if both at their peak­ Sampras based on that game could hold serve easier and­ therefore more likely to win. Do i know this for a­ fact, of course not. do you know for a fact that­ Federer would win, no. it's just a matter of­ opinion. Remember, this is based upon if they are at­ the peak of their game. Sampras losing during when he­ was in his peak era does not mean he was at his best­ during those losing matches. i respect that this is not­ how sport works and therefore, yes Federer is the more­ consistent player, especially when you count clay. does­ this mean Federer is the undoubted best on clay, no.­ does this mean Federer is the undoubted best on grass,­ no. does this mean Federer is the undoubted best on­ hard, no. what is does mean is that all round his­ record shows he is the most consistent on all thse­ surfaces. therefore, like i've said before, at­ least for the moment, he is all round the best. i just­ THINK (and that's all i'm doing is­ thinking)that Sampras when playing his best in a match­ will win on two of those 3 surfaces against anyone­ playing their best. and as Meatloaf famously said, 2­ out of 3 ain't bad. but seriously, my argument is­ my own, my interpretation is my own and so it should­ only matter to me and not others that disagree.­ don't worry, my thoughts are not going to change­ the Federer consensus (and i'm sure you're not­ worried!). And that consensus is well argued like­ i've said before. i'm not hurting anyone by the­ ideas in my head so let's just look forward to­ Wimbledon! i'm out.

oh and ignore my comment regarding Hewiit. I did not­ mean to imply he has a winning record against Sampras­ in his prime.

Krajicek does though!! and who was­ Krajicek? Beat a prime Sampras on grass and Hardcourt­ with a 5-4 head to head record.

Also after Sampras won his first U.S open in 1990 it­ took him another 12 years to win his 5th. Losing in­ finals to the likes of Agassi, Safin and Hewiit. Also­ have a look and see who he lost to in his prime when­ he did not even make the final! A prime Sampras was no­ way near as good as you think he was backhouse M.­ Records show that. Only 2 Australin open titiles? he­ wasn't all that on hard court compardd to Federer.­ This is confirmed by the players who played against­ them both. Federer 5 in a row at both Wimbledon and the­ U.S open. Thats called being unplayible on grass and­ hard court not Sampras.

I think your being biased­ beyond the point of reasonible doubt. The record shows­ who was better. The players who played them both said­ who was better. The legends from eras gone by say who­ is better. The players of TODAY say who they think is­ better. Sanpras said ROger was BETTER! yet you think­ Sanpras was better then Federer? No way! like I said i­ can easily shoot down your arguments with ease. Sampras­ was great no doubt. Too much about power on the serve­ though when compared to Roger. However I think Pete was­ an incredible at covering the court. Graet back hand­ wonderfull at the serve and volley and excellent­ returner of serve. I think he was mentally alot lot­ stonger then Federer. In fact he was almost Robotic at­ times. However the facts remain. Ask yourself this also­ why at the French open in 2006 did McEnroe say if Roger­ wins he is he greatest of all time already? By that­ time he has only won 7 grand slams. It was his all­ round skills that pete never had.

I find it amazing­ that everyone I meet who thinks Nadal or Sampras is­ better always show themselves up for having a serious­ lack of Tennis knowledge. Yet people who I consider­ knowledgible all sayRoger is the best, Funny that­ isn't it? I include professional Tennis players and­ coachs in that category.

Backhouse M please with all due respect you continue to­ justify my assertion that you do not really understand­ Tennis. For example

. but then again clay also takes­ away­ Federer's serve so Nadal is proven the­ better­ player. only mentioning this to show Federer­ needs his­ serve

Clay certainly DOES NOT take away­ Federers serve. What game of Tennis do you actually­ watch? Thats completetly incorrect. Yes it's slowed­ down abit but so is everybody elses? It's not taken­ away like the big servers of Sampras, Ivanicevic etc.­ He still beats people that he beats on all other­ surfaces. Even Nadal as he beat him twice on clay.­ Sampras was a different player on clay and very­ vunlirible to being beaten by anyone. That can hardly­ be said of Federer can it?Also Nadal beat Federer on­ clay not because his serve is slowed (he beats him on­ grass and hardcourt too remember??) but he has more­ time to line up he shots on clay as it's a slower­ surface and his superior rallying skils and ability to­ return shots no other player in world weakens Federer­ mindset. Thats how he beats him on clay. Not because­ Federers serve is slowed? This is what I mean when I­ say you know little about Tennis. Also Nadals serve is­ increased on grass and hard court don't­ forget.

Also when you wrote,

Just think that­­ Sampras when he's on his game on grass and hard,­ he­ overall is untouchable

Really lets look at the­ facts. Krajicek beat a prime Sampras in the quater­ finals at the peak of his powers at Wimbledon in 1996­ in straight sets!! Sampras was world number 1,­ defending champion and had won 3 wimbledon 3 years­ previously. Like Hewiit he has a winning record agaisnt­ him 5-4 beating him in his prime on grass and hard­ court.. At least when Federer lost it was 9-7 in the­ fith set of the final to the wrold number 2. A player­ who would go on to win on all surfaces. Also give me­ time to find the quote but I remember Kraijecek saying­ in 2006 that Roger would have beatn him in

also, writing Federer's age as 28 instead of 27 was­ a typo. Sorry about that!

OK you've made your point. Don't deny Federer­ has great skills, but Sampras still won matches even if­ he didn't have these skills. Not on clay, fine i­ accept that. but then again clay also takes away­ Federer's serve so Nadal is proven the better­ player. only mentioning this to show Federer needs his­ serve also but yes Federer is good on clay. and nadal­ is getting better on other surfaces as well. can't­ say nadal is best, far too early. Just think that­ Sampras when he's on his game on grass and hard, he­ overall is untouchable. you probably disagree and that­ is OK. that seems to be the difference between us - i­ don't mind that you have a difference in opinion.­ if you want to talk of Federer's all round ability­ so that it includes clay, i understand that - he has­ the upper hand on Sampras in that area undoubtedly. All­ round player, Federer is the best if you want to look­ at that area. Whether that means he is the greatest of­ all time, sure i can see why people will say that. your­ right that he is the greatest based on the­ interpretation and argument that you have so you should­ be happy with that. on other interpretaions, there are­ arguments of a different kind. I really am tired of­ dicussing this now so i'll be as fair as i possibly­ can. On your argument, you have come to the right­ decision. only want you to accept that there are­ reasons why Federer could be argued against. Whether or­ not you agree with the interpretation so that these­ reasons become valid is irrelevant and is not your­ concern. it is only the concern of those whose­ interpretation it is. i really don't want to­ comment anymore so if you want to comment just make you­ case in a respectful manner without insults or­ attacking. Again Federer is undoubtedly a great all­ round player.

oops ignore when I wrote in my last post

don't­ think Borg was as good as­ McEnroe all round but thats­ another argument.

I meant to write

I don't think­ Borg OR McEnroe were as good as Federer all round!

Ahh backhouse M I said Federer and SAMPRAS serves. Not­ Nadals as that is a different topic altogether. Lets­ stay wrih Federer + Sampras. The point is when you­ slowed down Petes serve on clay he was average (not­ rubbish but average) lots of low ranked players who he­ would obliterate on grass and hard court were able to­ dispatch him with relative ease on many occasions on­ the clay. However when Federer's serve is slowed he­ is still a formidible player is he not? beats everyone­ still apart from Nadal on clay. Sampras might as well­ of been ranked out of the top 20 when it came to clay.­ This is the point I'm making. Federer has things in­ his game Sampras never had. Pete himself said this­ after their exibition matches. Roger has shot making­ skills he never had. Peter boomed his serve and smashed­ back the return on the volley. Hardly Rogers style is­ it? Too much about Power and thats why so many people­ were saying Federer was the best years before he won­ the French open backhouse M. Swap the serves and Pete­ would lose out while Roger would arguibly gain. I use­ this as an example of Federers superior Tennis skills.­

Also for the record Roger is 27 and not 28 as you­ wrote Please check your facts.. Borg quit in the face­ of being regularly beaten by Connors and McEnroe. Once­ they caught up with him and eneded his dominance he ran­ away basically! Did Roger quit after Wimbledon or the­ Aussie open. I don't think Borg was as good as­ McEnroe all round but thats another argument.

Again­ with Laver he said he never had the all round shot­ making skills of Federer. You can compare by watching­ the tapes! also players from all eras say Roger is the­ best they have ever seen! I really think your in­ denial by the way! honestly mate i really do. That­ includes Nadal, Murray and Djokovic by the way??