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 441 - 460 of 520

Sort comments by: Most recent

  1. Sorry i meant to write it took federer 6 matches to­ beat nadal on clay - but you still get my point

    From backhouse_m, on Wed 10 Jun 8:02PM

  2. Just wondering why when people discuss the head to head­ between Federer and Nadal, Federer fans often say­ 'well if you don't count the matches on­ clay....' This is not how head to heads work. Clay­ is one of the three surfaces they play on and so it­ should count like all the others. Fact is it is an­ excuse to account for Federer's loosing record and­ the best should be able to play on all surfaces. Notice­ how it took 9 matches before Federer won against Nadal­ on clay, yet nadal needed only 3 to beat Federer on­ grass. Just throwing this one out there.

    From backhouse_m, on Wed 10 Jun 7:59PM

  3. Quite stupid spot, couldn't they come up with­ something more interesting?
    doubleU doubleU doubleU x­ youtube x com slash watch?v=WjpyJc-67TI

    From Casalpusterlengho, on Wed 10 Jun 6:36PM

  4. To 455: Again you are clearly missing the point - no­ matter whose opinion it is it is still only an opinion­ - i beg you to try and make a subjective matter­ objective. if you even bother trying to do that then­ you need to look those words up in the dictionary.

    From backhouse_m, on Wed 10 Jun 6:09PM

  5. I have a question:
    If Nadal's style didn't mean­ he was so proe to injury, do people think he could­ become the greatest ever? Why?

    From Alice, on Wed 10 Jun 4:50PM

  6. One more time: Nadal and­ Feder cannot be compared,­ they operate in two entirely­ separate champion­ categories.

    1: Nadal, today, is not even near the­ category of Federer (allround) and Federer not even­ near Nadal (clay). Remove FO from Nadal and there's­ the AO left. Remove ANY from Federer and there are the­ other GS left.

    2: As to comparisons between Federer­ with the Past Great Masters of Tennis, one can compare­ a) by numbers and b) all the Masters' own words. As­ mentioned numerous times in these forums, we all know­ who they think is the GOAT.

    3: Concerning opinions in­ these forums:
    The Yahoo poll shows that most people­ think that Federer is the best of all time. It just­ might reflect the numbers of opinions in these­ forums.

    Is Roger Federer the greatest tennis player­ ever?
    Yes 80% 13941 votes
    No 20% 3485 votes

    4: The­ one that stands alone at the top of this pyramid­ certainly seems to have the name of Federer.

    But,­ sweet bird of paradox, why compare at all? And whoever­ thinks Nadal is The Greatest of All Time or even­ comparable to some image of a Greatest of All Time: Let­ that person believe he is...

    From Casalpusterlengho, on Wed 10 Jun 3:10PM

  7. Everyone has equal opportunity to express their opinion­ but that doesn't mean everyone's opinion­ carries the same weight or are equally as important or­ equally as credible. The opinions of experts outweighs­ the opinions of non-experts and are more important and­ more valid. The past masters of tennis, tennis experts­ and commentators are pretty much unanimous in saying­ Federer is the greatest of all time. They have been­ saying this long before Federer won French Open and­ equaled Sampras grand slam titles. There was no talk­ about anyone else being the greatest in the middle of­ their career until Federer came along not Sampras, not­ Borg, not Laver, not anyone. No doubt Federer will go­ on to win more grand slams and surpass Sampras'­ record. Federer's is ahead on his head to head­ record with Nadal on surfaces other than clay. None of­ the experts ever talked about Nadal being anyone near­ the greatest of all time and for good reasons too.

    From sabathiel_01, on Wed 10 Jun 12:15PM

  8. Incorrect backhouse M. In comparison to professional­ Tennis players who have played both Sampras and Federer­ in their primes not only is your opinion less important­ it is alot less credible as you are not basing it on­ actually playing Sampras or Federer are you?

    Rod­ laver, Connors, McEnroe, Agassi and SAMPRAS have all­ said Roger is the greatest player of all time.

    Again­ how can you argue with opinions from those people?

    From tyrone100smith1979, on Wed 10 Jun 12:02PM

  9. It's my opinion, as I have said with the words­ 'i think' and it is just as valid as yours no.­ 453. Just because i am not jumping on Federer's­ bandwagon doesn't make my opinion any less­ important.

    From backhouse_m, on Wed 10 Jun 11:44AM

  10. Backhouse M comment 451, yet again it's amazing how­ Nadal or Sampras fans like to twist things to suit­ their own opinion.

    Well here's a thought. Instead­ of relying on your own view when you are not even a­ professional Tennis player how about Andre­ Agassi's? A grand slam legend we all agree?

    He­ played Sampras MANY MANY times in his prime. He also­ played Federer on many occasions in his prime too.­

    He said that Federer was the TOUGHER OPPONENT! Now­ that is from someone who has played both. Does this­ mean nothing to delusional Sampras fans?

    Tim Henman­ who also played both in their primes also said the same­ thing. He said Roger was harder to play agaisnt and had­ the better all round game.

    Now if this is still not­ enough for delusional idiots how about the actual view­ of Pete Sampras? After their exibition matches he said­ Rgoer has things in he game that he NEVER HAD! Yes­ thats a quote form Pete Sampras. Since he has actually­ played Roger in his prime and he also says Federer is­ the greatest of all time does this again not mean­ nothing to people who like to live in a fantasy­ world?

    I ask how can casual armchair fans possibly­ argue with testimony from professional Tennis players?­ Especially ones who have played both Samnpras and­ Federer in their primes not to mention the opinion of­ Sampras himself!

    Go on then answer me that??

    From tyrone100smith1979, on Wed 10 Jun 11:31AM

  11. Backhouse M comment 451, yet again it's amazing how­ Nadal or Sampras fans like to twist things to suit­ their own opinion.

    Well here's a thought. Instead­ of relying on your own view when you are not even a­ professional Tennis player how about Andre­ Agassi's? A grand slam legend we all agree?

    He­ played Sampras MANY MANY times in his prime. He also­ played Federer on many occasions in his prime too.­

    He said that Federer was the TOUGHER OPPONENT! Now­ that is from someone who has played both. Does this­ mean nothing to delusional Sampras fans?

    Tim Henman­ who also played both in their primes also said the same­ thing. He said Roger was harder to play agaisnt and had­ the better all round game.

    Now if this is still not­ enough for delusional idiots how about the actual view­ of Pete Sampras? After their exibition matches he said­ Rgoer has things in he game that he NEVER HAD! Yes­ thats a quote form Pete Sampras. Since he has actually­ played Roger in his prime and he also says Federer is­ the greatest of all time does this again not mean­ nothing to people who like to live in a fantasy­ world?

    I ask how can casual armchair fans possibly­ argue with testimony from professional Tennis players?­ Especially ones who have played both Samnpras and­ Federer in their primes not to mention the opinion of­ Sampras himself!

    Go on then answer me that??

    From tyrone100smith1979, on Wed 10 Jun 11:31AM

  12. Let's face facts with all this who is the greatest­ argument. if there is need for discussion then it is­ purely down to opinion. If we are talking fact then yes­ Federer is the most SUCCESSFUL player but does that­ mean he is the GREATEST? In my opinion to be the­ greatest, or rather to even be considered the greatest­ you have to have dominated your own era and Federer has­ not done that when facing Nadal. 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. Plus Federer has lost to Nadal at FO, Wimbledon and­ AO in consective meetings.

    From backhouse_m, on Wed 10 Jun 10:23AM

  13. Before we argue about who's the greatest, we need­ to agree on metrics for defining the greatest. Also­ speculative statements containing 'if',­ 'how'. etc. should also be avoided because then­ everyone could be the greatest.
    Like in other sports,­ the greatness should be measured on the highest score.­ I would personnally use the number of slams won as­ criteria to be considered the greatest. Were the­ masters series played earlier, I would have also added­ this parameter.
    That being said, Sampras and Federer­ are on the top but Federer wins the tiebreak since he­ won the FO.

    From Ananda, on Wed 10 Jun 4:52AM

  14. Fed id definitely the GOAT. Will his record stand,­ only time will tell. Article is great and put most­ factors in perspective.

    Some guys comments are­ shallow. Of course nobody has a perfect game. Tennis­ is still a game, so even at your best you can loose,­ otherwise there will be no point in playing. The­ question is who is the GOAT. Mac once said that there­ is nobody out there that has a perfect game. All you­ can do is play with what you got and hope you can win.­

    Eventually we will reach a Record that will be­ unbreakable. look at Margaret Smith Court record in­ singles, doubles, and mixed in the Slams. In any­ record is unbreakable that may be.

    On the mens side we­ will have to wai until Fed career is over, as per today­ he is no dobut the GOAT.
    Fact. His peers consider­ him the GOAT
    Fact: Laver, Sampras, Agassi and Mac­ consider him the GOAT ( all great champions with­ different styles)
    Fact; He has the record of 14 Grand­ Slams ( tied with Pete) but with one FO.
    20 straight­ semi finals in GS. Titles in all surfaces. ­ .......What else there is to achieve and keep him­ motivated...

    I think you cannot argue against that,­ unless you are biased

    From Totometria, on Wed 10 Jun 1:52AM

  15. Everybody's performance can/will be­ surpassed,­ even the performance of the one's that surpass.­ These will be perpetual occurrences. Mr and Mrs Perfect­ will never exist.

    From Casalpusterlengho, on Tue 9 Jun 10:20PM

  16. again something in favor of Federer: he defeated­ Sampras at wimbledon 2001, and Sampras was still in a­ great form:he won US open 2002

    From rockgnr, on Tue 9 Jun 9:06PM

  17. No.

    From jelena, on Tue 9 Jun 9:00PM

  18. As a follow-up, I would wish RF to be the greatest­ player ever, but he is not yet there.

    From Ebere, on Tue 9 Jun 8:58PM

  19. It is intriguing that this question has just been­ raised now that RF has completed a career grand slam.­ Why not earlier? Would it have been out of place if he­ did not complete the slam? It would probably be fairer­ to put this question to professional tennis players­ (current and retired) as well as tennis coaches still­ living. What qualities would qualify a player as the­ best ever? It would seem that such a player would have­ perfected all the basic shots and probably invented­ some new shots. Apart from natural talent such a player­ must have tactical genius. RF is currently the best but­ is his game perfect? No. Can his performance be­ surpassed? I believe so.

    From Ebere, on Tue 9 Jun 8:46PM

  20. YES!!! Roger is the greatest. and let me tell you why­ (specialy to those who insist on nadal):
    BECAUSE TO BE­ THE GREATEST DOESN'T MEAN TO BEAT JUST ONE PLAYER­ (nadal in this case), BECAUSE THE TALENT AND THE WAY TO­ PLAY THAT ROGER HAS NOBODY OF OTHER PLAYERS HAS,­ BECAUSE WHAT HE DID IN 4 AND A HALF YEARS NOBODY DID,­ AND HE STILL REACHES FINALS (and if you wanna be fair­ he's decline came because a flue but he seems to be­ back, GO ROGER! by the way),
    BECAUSE HE BROUGHT SO­ MANY RECORDS AND EQUALED SAMPRAS AND HE STILL CAN DO­ MORE
    BECAUSE IN REAL LIFE HE IS A WONDERFULL PERSON­ THAT DESERVES ALL THE RESPECT
    BECAUSE WHEN YOU WANNA­ SAY SOMETHING LIKE WE SAY HERE,YOU HAVE TO VALUE HIS­ ALL WORK TO GET WHERE HE IS AND ALL HIS ACHIEVEMENTS­ (to be a big fan of other player doesn't give you­ the right to judge Roger because of you're­ resentment)
    Roger you're simply the best...anything­ is posible, that's the beauty of living...and to­ win RG was finaly posible.GO FOR MORE!

    From lorelai_c_22, on Tue 9 Jun 7:56PM
Sort comments by: Most recent

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