Rate it!

79 votes

Eurosport-Yahoo! blogger Simon Reed believes that in winning his 15th Grand Slam title, Roger Federer deserves to be called the greatest player of all time.

I believe that Roger Federer should be called the greatest player that has ever lived after his 15th Grand Slam title, beating Pete Sampras's record.

Federer has done absolutely everything required of him, having won such a huge quantity of titles, and on every surface at that.

Sampras, to his credit, was very quick after the match to acknowledge that Federer is the greatest player to have lived, and you would be hard pressed to disagree.

Rod Laver missed seven years of his career when he would most probably have won many more majors, but it will not stop people ranking the top players.

Laver did have two real Grand Slams to his name - i.e. winning all four Slams in a year, and that has to count for a lot, despite taking fewer titles in total.

What can be said with absolute certainty is that Federer is the best player since Laver, and nobody can argue with that.

It must have been shattering for Roddick, because he was so brave throughout the match, and he was always firmly in the contest.

When it got to 9-9 and 10-10 in the final set, it was the American who was making the chances and he was desperately unlucky to lose at the end of it.

Roddick will be left to rue that second set tie-break when he was leading 6-2 and let it slip from his grasp. If he had won that breaker, I do not think he would have lost the match.

It took until the end of the second set for Federer to find his form, and Roddick would have taken the match had it continued in that manner.

With the match level at 1-1, Federer then becomes the favourite again, and from that point on, Roddick was always fighting to retain parity.

I think he will remember that backhand volley he had on set point for the rest of his life: it is very sad for him, it will stay with him forever.

I sensed that Roddick was tiring and Federer had the edge from about 15 minutes before the end, and I think the Swiss picked up on that.

As it turned out, Roddick did crack, but I do not think it was mental as he is so strong, I just think he was very worn out physically.

From 1-1, I felt that Federer always had the edge, but there was the odd point in the fifth set when I fancied that Roddick might squeeze it: it was incredibly tight.

I do not think that the match was actually that thrilling for the spectators until the final set, at which point it became terrific entertainment.

Personally, I would have liked to have seen the fifth set go to a tie-break, as you can certainly stretch a good thing too far.

The problem is, Wimbledon will always be reluctant to change.

You have to say, that was probably Roddick's last chance at winning Wimbledon, and that is a great shame for all his efforts.

I think the American could still win a US Open, and his performance against Andy Murray was even better than today: it was a stunning effort.

I am unsure about Federer: fatherhood may change his mental approach to tennis having achieved so much, but it is impossible to say for sure.

---

The women's final was unfortunately a very poor match, which was not thrilling by anyone's reckoning.

It really needed a stunning contest to ignite the crowd's enthusiasm, but the match drifted away before the spectators could really get into it.

I believe that Serena Williams is the better player, and she is up there as one of the best players ever.

Venus is probably better on this surface and I would expect her to win more Wimbledon titles, but Serena is an astonishing talent.

It was a shame that the final was uninspiring, but both Williams sisters can be proud of having dominated yet another tournament at SW19.

Simon Reed / Eurosport