French Open - Is Federer the greatest?

Eurosport - Mon, 08 Jun 23:19:00 2009

Victory at Roland Garros saw Roger Federer join an elite group to have won all four Grand Slam titles. Five men achieved the feat before Federer: how does the current world number two stack up against them?

Roger Federer (L) and Andre Agassi - French Open 2009 - 0

Fred Perry

Britain's Fred Perry was the first man to achieve a career Grand Slam, back in the days when tennis was mainly an amateur sport and the men often played lengthy tours against a specific opponent.

Perry - also a champion table tennis player - was 18 when he took up the tennis, yet less than eight years later had won each of the Grand Slams at least once, and had already spent the first of four years as the world number one.

Like Federer, Perry's last Grand Slam title came at the French Open, with a four-set victory over defending champion Gottfried von Cramm in 1935.

Don Budge

Three years after Perry won the first career Grand Slam, his American arch-rival Don Budge emulated the feat. Budge, considered to have the best backhand in the history of tennis, also completed his career Grand Slam at the French Open before going on to win all four Majors in a calendar year - the first man to achieve such a feat.

Rod Laver

The outbreak of the Second World War forced many tennis players into the armed forces and resulted in the suspension of Grand Slam events. The US Open continued as before and the French Open missed just one year, but the Australian Open and Wimbledon disappeared for the duration of the war and it was nearly 30 years before anyone dominated in the same fashion as Perry and Budge.

But when those players did emerge, the word 'domination' hardly seems adequate to describe their success.

Australians Rod Laver and Roy Emerson shared the Australian Open title (then the Australian Championships) for eight straight years and contested five other Grand Slam finals.

Laver was arguably the better and provides the closest competition to Federer for the mantle of the greatest the game has seen.

With his first Grand Slam title coming at the 1960 Australian Open, Laver had completed a career Grand Slam by 1962 and went on to repeat the feat by 1969.

Yet despite winning eight Slams in those two years alone, the Aussie collected only 11 Grand Slams in total.

The reason for this is clear. The top-tier tennis championships were still amateur events for most of the 60s, and when Laver turned professional after his amazing 1962 season he was barred from competing at any of the four.

In 1968, though, the open era began as tournaments opened their doors to professionals.

How many Grand Slam titles would the Australian have won had he been allowed to compete between 1963 and 1967? It's impossible to say. Comparing eras is always difficult, but it seems safe to assume that Laver would have ended up with considerably more than the record 14 shared by Pete Sampras and Federer.

Roy Emerson

Unlike Laver, Emerson did not turn professional, which allowed him to win more major titles that his compatriot.

Emmo, as he was known on tour, did not take long to secure his career Grand Slam, completing the feat at Wimbledon in 1964. He also held the career record of 12 Grand Slam victories - among them six Australian Open titles - for 34 years, until it was surpassed in 2000 by Sampras.

Emerson is also the only male player to have won all four Grand Slam singles and doubles titles.

Andre Agassi

Admirable as all these achievements are, there is one crucial thing that leaves Federer heading the list for the game's greatest player: the fact that until 1987 the Australian Open was played on grass.

Hence Perry, Budge, Laver and Emerson won on three different surfaces only, which adds to the argument that Federer's diversity makes him more impressive.

Only one other male player can claim to have won all four Majors on four surfaces, and that is Andre Agassi (pictured, right).

The American completed his career Grand Slam at the 1999 French Open, seven years after first winning at Wimbledon. Agassi went on to win the last of his eight Major titles at the Australian Open in 2003, before crawling into retirement three years later at the grand old age of 36.

Roger Federer

Federer (pictured, left) could have completed his career Grand Slam as early as 2006, when he reached the first of his four French Open finals.

But Rafael Nadal stood in his way, as he did again in 2007 and 2008.

So, does the fact that Federer has not won all four Majors in a year dent his claim? Probably not, as he reached all four finals in both 2006 and 2007, with only the French Open title eluding him on both occasions.

That record puts even Sampras in the shade. For all his skills, the American never reached the same level of consistency as the Swiss. He was never able to win more than two Majors in a calendar year, something Federer has managed twice.

Did the fact that Federer did not have to beat Nadal on his way to this year's French Open title make it an easier win? In a word, no. Nadal is an outstanding clay court player, but Federer beat the Spaniard just three weeks ago in the Madrid Masters with a performance just as outstanding as the one Robin Soderling produced to consign Nada; to his first defeat at Roland Garros.

Doubters will always find a reason not to proclaim Federer the greatest player to grace a tennis court, but one thing is for sure: time and again Federer has beaten the opposition put in front of him.

And this is far from the end of his story. With a record-equalling 14 Grand Slam titles across all the surfaces in just six years, the 27-year-old potentially has another five or six years of peak tennis left in him yet.

Just ask Agassi.

Pippa Davis / Eurosport

Comment 461 - 480 of 520

Sort comments by: Most recent

  1. are you mental or what? i have every right to disagree­ - it's my choice, like it or not. i can disagree­ purely because i have the leeway to do so. sounds like­ we have a disagreement on what it means to be the­ greatest and that's fine i have no problem with­ that. the issue is that you don't accept Federer­ being the best is only people's thought (they are­ entitled to it by all means)but that is all.also­ don't say i've made a stupid statement before­ understanding what i said. i wrote that Nadal held­ grand slams on all 3 surfaces at the same time (which­ he did with Australian, French and wimbledon).­ Don't try twisting my words to make me look like a­ fool because all it shows is that you can't read­ properly. Point blank, and i don't expect any­ further argument to this as it is a pointless exercise,­ Federer is more successful than Nadal (at the moment -­ he is older)but can't dominate him, especially in­ the big matchups which is what it is all about. No need­ to get stressed, i'm not. Just find it funny that­ some people don't understand the word subjective.

    From backhouse_m, on Fri 12 Jun 5:14PM

  2. Whoa backhouse M why such an emo emotional response? ­

    I will show some more flaws in your Tennis knowledge­ just as Tyrone100smith did.
    Nadal did NOT win all 3­ grand slams at the same time as you wrote? How could­ he? he did not win the U.S open 2008 did he? Please­ check facts before making stupid statements. That­ comment reflects badly on you. Also you think Nadal and­ Federer are even on hard court? are you serious? Have­ you seen Nadals record at the U.S open and against­ other players on tour? Not so dominant as he is on clay­ is he? Loses to far lower calibre players on tour­ regularly. He has such a lack of consistency in getting­ to hard court finals. I don't think he will ever­ dominate like Federer did on hard court. Federer beats­ everyone else except Nadal on clay.

    Also I think­ your quite ignorant because guess what? Liverpool beat­ Man Utd twice this season? Both home and away. In fact­ they thrashed them 4-1 at Old trafford? Does that mean­ Man Utd are not the best team in the premiership just­ because they have a losing record that season to their­ nearest rivals? just because Man Utd have a losing­ streak dosen't take away from the fact they are a­ better team does it?

    You sound like a nit picker in­ denial for whatever reason. Especiialy as Tennis­ legends agree that Federer is the best. Who are you to­ say they are wrong?

    From kanespurs, on Fri 12 Jun 4:26PM

  3. No. 479 - yes i do have an understanding of tennis. if­ Nadal is the best player ever on clay then what regards­ the best player ever - i guess you'll say the­ overall all rounder yes? well just in case you­ didn't realise, nadal won grand slams on all 3­ surfaces BEFORE Federer and at a much younger age and­ all at the same time. as the record shows, Nadal is so­ much better than Federer on clay, is equal on hard and­ is catching up on grass (2007 final was 5 sets­ remember)Anyway, according to your argument, lets say­ they played more on grass - then they would be about­ even, right? if Federer is the outright best ever then­ there would be no excuse for him to not lead their head­ to head.

    From backhouse_m, on Fri 12 Jun 4:03PM

  4. Tyrone100smith makes some excellent points. However­ backhouse M regarding Sampras vs Cowan what you foeget­ is how badly he played against him. If Sampras had­ played like he did against Federer it would have been­ over in straight sets easily. Don't belive me?­ Check out McEnroes commentary on the Youtube­ highlights. You respect his views right?

    Regarding­ the clay court argument what you do not understand how­ much of sticking point it actuallty is backhouse M.­ Just necause you say it's not does not make it so.­ Nadal is supreme on clay (the best ever) Roger is­ amazing on grass (potentially the best ever). The clay­ court season is unfairly much longer then the gras. If­ they had played 11 times on grass and just 3 on clay do­ you think the head to head record would be 13-7 in­ Nadals favour? unlikely so yes the surface does make a­ difference backhouse M. You have to take that into­ accont when Nadal has played Federer 11 times on his­ favourite surface. If the clay court season was much­ shorter and grass was longer then there would likely be­ a different record. I don't think you really have­ an understanding of Tennis.

    Also that head to head is­ not finished yet!

    From kanespurs, on Fri 12 Jun 12:01PM

  5. also of note is that wild card British player Barry­ Cowan pushed Sampras to 5 sets that same tournament.­ Surely, had he won, you would not be saying what a­ phenomenal player Cowan is. Still, all in the name of­ good fun this isn't it?

    From backhouse_m, on Fri 12 Jun 10:44AM

  6. Already seen the match and while you are right that­ Federer did win that day, just a few points to make­ (make of it what you will). Firstly you have argued­ before that things are not decided purely on one match,­ so basing this win for Federer should not really tell­ us a lot. Sampras, however good he was at that time was­ not at his best (in fact many were surprised that­ sampras was able to win it the year before). Federer­ was what 10 years younger than Sampras at the time? And­ don't forget Nadal beat Federer when Federer was­ No. 1 when he was only 18, way before Nadal was at his­ best. Anyway, this is getting a pretty redundant­ argument now. Don't mind you thinking Federer's­ the best, there is a good case for it. i'm just not­ as confident as you are about comparing eras. all i can­ say based on fact is that Nadal has taken on Federer in­ his prime and has a winning record (don't make the­ excuse of matches being played on clay, it's­ getting old)so that is a blemish that will always be­ there (unless he can change this record). Don't­ forget 20% of voters also don't think Federer's­ the best so i'm not alone here. Nothing against­ Federer just don't like the idea of picking only­ one as the greatest but if you've got to choose­ one, i'll admit Federer would not be a bad choice,­ even though my view may be different. See ya!

    From backhouse_m, on Fri 12 Jun 8:06AM

  7. backhouse m wrote

    by you saying you won't try to­ keep persuading me­ to feel a certain way finally shows­ and acceptance that­ we are not dealing with fact

    No­ it does not. It just means I will not keep trying to­ persuade you. There is a difference. Before I go let me­ just leave you with a thought. Watch the match or the­ highlights of when Sampras lost to Federer at­ Wimbledon. Amaziningly I was actually there that day as­ a young teenager. Alot (not all) of that match was­ actually vintage Sampras. Particularly the first 2­ sets. However Roger was getting back balls and winning­ the points that anyone else would not have made that­ day. Roger's all round game was superb. It was­ incredible that it actually took him another two years­ after this match to win a Grand slam. He had the talent­ to win one much sooner. Still shocked that Tim henman­ beat Federer in the very next round after that!­ Although Roger was not able to pull off the shot making­ skills that he did against Sampras. Put it down to­ imaturity maybe being the raw talent that he was back­ then.

    Remember Roger beat Sampras on grass when he was­ undefeated in 31 matchs, was defending champion and had­ just won 4 wimbledons in a row (in fact 7 of the last­ 8). Many feel that Sampras was much closer to his best­ that day then Federer was being 19.

    watch the match­ and have a think. perhaps one day you will come to your­ senses!

    Goodbye

    From tyrone100smith1979, on Fri 12 Jun 12:53AM

  8. backhouse m wrote

    by you saying you won't try to­ keep persuading me­ to feel a certain way finally shows­ and acceptance that­ we are not dealing with fact

    No­ it does not. It just means I will not keep trying to­ persuade you. There is a difference. before I go let me­ just leave you with a thought. watch the match or the­ highlights of when sampras lost to federer at­ Wimbledon. Amaziningly I was actually there that day as­ a young teenager. Alot (not all) of that match was­ actually vintage Sampras. Particularly the first 2­ sets. However Roger was getting back balls and winning­ the points that anyone else would not have made that­ day. Thatl that day. rogers all round game was superb.­ It was incredible that it actually took him another two­ years after this match to win Grand slam. He had the­ talent to win one much sooner. Still shocked that Tim­ henman beat Federer in the very next round after that!­ Although Roger was not able to pull off the shot making­ skills that he did against Sampras. Put it down to­ imaturity.

    Remember Roger beat Sampras on grass when­ he was undefeated in 31 matchs, was defending champion­ and had just won 4 wimbledons in a row (in fact 7 of­ the last 8). Many feel that sampras was much closer to­ his best that day then Federer was being 19.

    watch the­ match and have a think. perhaps one day you will come­ to your senses!

    Goodbye

    From tyrone100smith1979, on Fri 12 Jun 12:49AM

  9. No denial, no confusion, just opinion in a discussion.­ by you saying you won't try to keep persuading me­ to feel a certain way finally shows and acceptance that­ we are not dealing with fact. I assure you there would­ be no need to persuade me that 2+2=4. I completely­ acknowledge your case of argument and i'm not­ saying your wrong, but obviously i can't say­ you're right either. Good argument and glad to to­ see you are consistent with it.

    From backhouse_m, on Thu 11 Jun 10:42PM

  10. Well backhouse m we'll agree to disagree. Can't­ believe you feel that Sampras would have the better of­ Federer after all the points I've made. Even though­ Agassi and Henman both said Federer was the better­ player. Remember Backhpuse M they actually PLAYED both­ men at their peaks.

    Also you are forgetting Wimbledon­ 2001 Federer beat the defending Champion and ended his­ 4 wimbledons and 31 match winning streak. Yes Sampras­ was past his best but Roger wouldn't win a Grand­ slam for another two years after beating Pete ON GRASS­ at Wimbledon. I would say that Roger was further from­ his best that day then Sampras yet he still beat­ him.

    Anyway I have also made the argument about­ sampras serve and clay etc so I won;t try to keep­ convincing you but I have to say this from the tone of­ your posts you sound like your in denial rather then­ genuinely beleiving what you write.
    Ask yourself why­ that is.

    Rememeber Pete actually said Federer was the­ better player. Surely that puts it beyond doubt to a­ rational mind?

    From tyrone100smith1979, on Thu 11 Jun 9:50PM

  11. Nadal didn't play Federer on grass in 2005. it was­ from 2006 to 2008 so it is also 2 years.

    From backhouse_m, on Thu 11 Jun 8:44PM

  12. backhouse_m you said: "Notice­ how it took 6­ matches before Federer won against Nadal­ on clay, yet­ nadal needed only 3 to beat Federer on­ grass."­ this is true but doesn't mean anything: the first­ time Nadal managed to beat Federer on grass was in­ 2008, and Federer defeated Nadal on clay for the first­ time in 2007 so, if you start counting from 2005, it­ took Nadal 3 years to beat Federer on grass whereas­ Federer only needed two years to beat Nadal on clay.

    From rockgnr, on Thu 11 Jun 6:43PM

  13. No. 468: Respectfully i think we'll have to agree­ to disagree. By the way i have never implied who i­ think is the greatest. i don't agree with comparing­ eras and saying who is better. all i have said is that­ i am not convinced that Federer would have the better­ of Sampras and unfortunately we will never get to find­ this out. Can't really make an argument for who the­ best is, but just find that Federer's record­ against Nadal is a blemish on his career. also of note­ (and this is not to start an argument) you may notice­ that most regard Ronnie O'Sullivan the greatest­ snokker player of all time despite Stephen Hendry­ holding more titles. It's an interesting debate but­ to be honest it's great just to see these amazing­ players do what they do best. what is such a shame but­ is inevitable is that we can't get the dream­ matches of different eras. Anyway, good discussing this­ with you as i appreciate anyone with such a passion for­ this sport.

    From backhouse_m, on Thu 11 Jun 4:01PM

  14. Like it or not ROGER is the GOAT,It's not my­ opinion its records that says.

    From bongani, on Thu 11 Jun 11:56AM

  15. 466.Backhouse M kudos to you for acknowlodging how I­ back­ up my arguments with facts. However with regard­ your­ opinion (By the way you,wrote that word 8 times­ in your­ last comment) However I still disagree.­ Someone can­ think Liverpool or Arsenal are the best­ tem in England.­ Statistical evidence and informed­ opinion would show­ conclusively otherwise. Therefore­ that opinion would be­ incorrect

    Regarding what you­ wrote earlier

    . how i­ see is that­ being the greatest­ means you could be put­ up against­ any player and play­ them at all 4 slams and­ would win­ at least three of­ them. i am not convinced­ Federer­ would beat Sampras­ (at his best) at AO,­ Wimbledon or­ US.

    Have to­ disagree on this point. Do I­ think a peak Sampras­ could beat a peak Federer. Yes I­ do. However if they­ played 10 times on Grass and 10­ times on Hard court I­ think Roger would would win 12­ about of those 20­ matches. On clay Sampras would be­ very lucky to win 1­ out of 10.

    Tennis greatness is­ not decided over 1­ match though is it? It's results­ throughout the­ whole career. Also who was it who ended­ Nadals 81­ match winning streak on clay in 2007. Also he­ ended­ Nadals 33 match winning streak on clay a few­ weeks ago­ at the Madrid open. Federer has shown he can­ beat him­ on any surface and vice versa.

    Using your­ reasonings­ it's possible Federer can beat anyone on­ all 4­ grand slams on a given day. The exception to­ that­ would possibly be Nadal on clay.

    You have to­­ understand Bckhouse M the greatest is out of who­­ actually played Tennis. Not your ideal of how they­­ should be.

    Overwhelming Statistical evidence and­­ opinions of those who played Federer + Sampras and the­­ opinions of all the other greats should show beyond­­ doubt why he is the greatest.

    From tyrone100smith1979, on Thu 11 Jun 11:39AM

  16. Backhouse M kudos to you for acknowlodging how I back­ up my arguments with facts. However with regard your­ opinion (By the way you,wrote that word 8 times in your­ last comment) However I still disagree. Someone can­ think Liverpool or Arsenal are the best tem in England.­ Statistical evidence and informed opinion would show­ conclusively otherwise. Therefore that opinion would be­ incorrect

    Regarding what you wrote earlier

    . how i­ see is that­ being the greatest means you could be put­ up against­ any player and play them at all 4 slams and­ would win­ at least three of them. i am not convinced­ Federer­ would beat Sampras (at his best) at AO,­ Wimbledon or­ US.

    Have to disagree on this point. Do I­ think a peak Sampras could beat a peak Federer. Yes I­ do. However if they played 10 times on Grass and 10­ times on Hard court I think Roger would would win 12­ about of those 20 matches. On clay Sampras would be­ very lucky to win 1 out of 10.

    Tennis greatness is­ not decided over 1 match though is it? It's results­ throughout the whole career. Also who was it who ended­ Nadals 81 match winning streak on clay in 2007. Also he­ ended Nadals 33 match winning streak on clay a few­ weeks ago at the Madrid open. Federer has shown he can­ beat him on any surface and vice versa.

    Using your­ reasonings it's possible Federer can beat anyone on­ all 4 grand slams on a given day. The exception to­ that would possibly be Nadal on clay.

    From tyrone100smith1979, on Thu 11 Jun 11:38AM

  17. Backhouse M kudos to you for acknowlodging how I back­ up my arguments with facts. However with regard your­ opinion (By the way you,wrote that word 8 times in your­ last comment) However I still disagree. Someone can­ think Liverpool or Arsenal are the best tem in England.­ Statistical evidence and informed opinion would show­ conclusively otherwise. Therefore that opinion would be­ incorrect

    Regarding what you wrote earlier

    . how i­ see is that­ being the greatest means you could be put­ up against­ any player and play them at all 4 slams and­ would win­ at least three of them. i am not convinced­ Federer­ would beat Sampras (at his best) at AO,­ Wimbledon or­ US.

    Have to disagree on this point. Do I­ think a peak Sampras could beat a peak Federer. Yes I­ do. However if they played 10 times on Grass and 10­ times on Hard court I think Roger would would win 12­ about of those 20 matches. On clay Sampras would be­ very lucky to win 1 out of 10.

    Tennis greatness is­ not decided over 1 match though is it? It's results­ throughout the whole career. Also who was it who ended­ Nadals 81 match winning streak on clay in 2007. Also he­ ended Nadals 33 match winning streak on clay a few­ weeks ago at the Madrid open. Federer has shown he can­ beat him on any surface and vice versa.

    Using your­ reasonings it's possible Federer can beat anyone on­ all 4 grand slams on a given day. The exception to­ that would possibly be Nadal on clay.

    You have to­ understand Bckhouse M the greatest is out of who­ actually played Tennis. Not your ideal of how they­ should be.

    Overwhelming Statistical evidence and­ opinions of those who played Federer + Sampras and the­ opinions of all the other greats should show beyond­ doubt why he is the greatest.

    From tyrone100smith1979, on Thu 11 Jun 11:38AM

  18. no. 464: when did i ever say i was a sampras fan by the­ way or are you just inferring things for YOUR own­ argument. Once again, to clarify, all i am saying is­ that if something is an opinion, no matter how popular­ or who's opinion it is it will never be turned into­ fact. It may very well be fact for many people in their­ own minds, including yours, but we all have our own­ views and whether in the minority or not, my view, no­ yours will ever be fact. this is a discussion after all­ so giving opinions is what this is all about.­ Respectfully, please try not to allow your opinion stop­ you seeing that it is only an opinion as i fully­ understand that my opinion is only an opinion. No one­ is right here, this isn't 2+2=4, it is simply a­ debate, one which to an extent will always exist in­ sports. I acknowledge the opinions of pro players but­ that does not mean i have to agree with them. Praise to­ you for backing up your argument because so many­ comments i have read don't do that.

    From backhouse_m, on Thu 11 Jun 9:15AM

  19. No Backhouse M again it is you who misunderstands. When­ your opinion is different to experts who have actually­ played professional Tennis and people who have actually­ played both men in their primes not to mention­ testimony form Sampras himself it becomes clear that­ your view pont is ridiculous. I might think that the­ Moon is made is made of cheese. It's an opinion but­ when experts say it's not then what I have said­ sounds pretty stupid dosen't it?

    Also typical­ Sampras/Nadal fan let me further embarass you with your­ own words and few things called facts! Your wrote,

    ­ the best should be able to play on all­ surfaces

    Really? like erm Sampras??? and your saying­ Roger can't!!!!???? he has beaten Nadal twice on­ caly(including Madid open 2 weeks ago) plus practically­ everyone else!

    What alot of Sampras supporters either­ choose to ignore or foget is that Pete had a HUGE­ booming serve. Don't you remember especially in the­ early rounds of Wimbledon he basically blasted­ opponents off the court! However when his serve was­ slowed on clay he wasn't as dominant then was he?­ In fact he was quite average. Not a single French Open­ final and hardly any tounaments won. Federer does not­ rely on a huge serve and actually outplays opponentts­ with his all round game. His game is made for any­ surface. He has exquisite shot making skills that­ sampras never had (Sampras himself even said this).­ That why people were saying he was the greatest even­ before he won the French open.

    Anything thing else­ backhouse M that you would like me to shoot down for­ you? Don't let your dislike cloud the facts of­ reality.

    From tyrone100smith1979, on Wed 10 Jun 9:23PM

  20. No Backhouse M again it is you who misunderstands. When­ your opinion is different to experts who have actually­ played professional Tennis and people who have actually­ played both men in their primes not to mention­ testimony form Sampras himself it becomes clear that­ your view pont is ridiculous. I might think that the­ Moon is made is made of cheese. It's an opinion but­ when experts say it's not then what I have said­ sounds pretty stupid dosen't it?

    Also typical­ Sampras/Nadal fan let me further embarass you with your­ own words and few things called facts! Your wrote,

    ­ the best should be able to play on all­ surfaces

    Really? like erm Sampras??? and your saying­ Roger can't!!!!???? he has beaten Nadal twice on­ caly(including Madid open 2 weeks ago) plus practically­ everyone else!

    What alot of Sampras supporters either­ choose to ignore or foget is that Pete had a HUGE­ booming serve. Don't you remember especially in the­ early rounds of Wimbledon he basically blasted­ opponents off the court! However when his serve was­ slowed on clay he wasn't as dominant then was he?­ In fact he was quite average. Not a single French Open­ final and hardly any tounaments won. Federer does not­ rely on a huge serve and actually outplays opponentts­ with his all round game. His game is made for any­ surface. He has exquisite shot making skills that­ sampras never had (Sampras himself even said this).­ That why people were saying he was the greatest even­ before he won the French open.

    Anything thing else­ backhouse M that you would like me to shoot down for­ you? Don't let your dislike cloud the facts of­ reality.

    From tyrone100smith1979, on Wed 10 Jun 9:23PM
Sort comments by: Most recent

Not already a Yahoo! user ? to get a free Yahoo! Account