to Kelvin B, comment 80,

"The people that Federer­ is being compared to,­ if you look at the times those­ people played, and if­ you watched a lot of tennis­ then; there were up to 6 or­ 8 players that were always­ contenders at slams. Not two­ or three. It was tough­ competition. Last few years has­ been about TWO people.­ Is Nadal the second greatest?­ Since he has been number­ two to federer all this while,­ and he has notched up 6­ slams as well in a short space­ of time, hasnt­ he?"

Unless you have metrics to objectively­ evaluate the level of tennis, it's very difficult­ to make such comparisons. How do you compare contenders­ of different periods?Using the toughness of the­ competition as a criteria has in itself flaws: one can­ argue that Sampras might had tougher competitions­ because his own level was closer to his contenders­ whereas in Federer's era the level of competition­ didn't change but only Fed and Nadal went one gear­ up in their game.

That being said, if you look closer­ at Sampras'era, in his prime (93-98) the real tough­ competition in terms of head to head he had wasn't­ 6-8 contenders but mainly Agassi.

Federer is a GREAT player, no question about that. Is­ he the BEST, I think the debate has to be ongoing. Just­ because he was number one for 4 and a half years and­ won 14 slams in such a short period of time doesnt­ necessarily make him the best.
Some oints to consider­ when making your decisions:
The calibre of tennis­ players in the last 5 to 6 years.
The advancement of­ sport technology: wooden rackets vs composite­ materials. Every year racket technology makes things­ different.
The hinderances that hampered other­ players
The people that Federer is being compared to,­ if you look at the times those people played, and if­ you watched a lot of tennis then; there were up to 6 or­ 8 players that were always contenders at slams. Not two­ or three. It was tough competition. Last few years has­ been about TWO people. Is Nadal the second greatest?­ Since he has been number two to federer all this while,­ and he has notched up 6 slams as well in a short space­ of time, hasnt he?
Not saying Federer is not the­ greatest, but am saying look at it from a TENNIS­ perspective, not a like him or not perspective.
Enjoy­ Wimbledon!

Hai friend, I am Roger fans but I think you may see­ this article.
Go to Google Searching Engine
Search­ News (not web or image)
then try to use 4 keywords:­ Federer Nadal knee thanks
and search news: very­ interesting article :-)
It is in Vancouver Sun

Federer isn't the greatest of all time, but before­ he retires, he will be the greatest ever. That is of­ course if he doesn't decide to retire tomorrow. He­ has got a few slams left in him and I think he is on­ pace to regain number #1 by the end of the year. I­ guess another way to put it is that if he wins a slam­ or two before the end of 09 and regains number #1­ again, the GOAT tag is his.

Federer is the greatest and below is why:
1) All great­ tennis players think he is indeed the greatest. That­ point only by itself is more than enough for him to­ qualify.
2) At the end of the day, for qualifying to be­ the greatest, only the number of slams won matters. He­ wins in this department. I understand people looking at­ other parameters for defining the greatest but the­ ultimate one got to be the number of slams won. Only­ when there is a tie at this level that secondary­ criteria could apply. It's the same in all sport.­ For example in running, the shortest time is all one­ needs for the world record and be the greatest. In­ olympics, it's the number of golden medals won. In­ formula one, please ask Michael Schuhmacher.
3) That­ being said, his losing record against Nadal doesn't­ disqualify for being the greatest. If someone wins 14­ slams and has no losing record against anyone than this­ guy could challenge to be the greatest. For the moment,­ no player has achieved this feat.
4) To those­ speculators: 'ifs' and 'whens'­ doen't apply. You are the greatest on what you­ achieved, not on what you could have achieved. Because­ one could also argue that Federer could have been­ number since 2003, could have won the grand slam twice­ had he adjusted his strategy against Nadal and that he­ could have actually won all the slams finals he played­ in.

Federer is simply the best, the artist classic player­ that I like to watch him playing his best tennis.

Roger Federer is the greatest because of these­ reasons:

1) He won most of his grandslams without a­ coach most recently being the French Open. How many­ people can win a grandslam without a coach?

2) He had­ the ability to come out from two sets down and a break­ from Tommy Haas, two sets down to Del Potro and a­ nervous tie breaker to Acasuso. Earlier he came back­ against Igor Andreev in USO 2008, Thomas Berdych. How­ many players have the heart to come back from­ situations like this?

3) He won the USO 2008, French­ open 2009, with his heart, will and determination.­ Roger didn't play the best but he played smart and­ as a result he won FO 2009.

4) Winning five Wimbledons­ and five US Opens in a row, three Australian Opens and­ having a French Open as a career grand slam makes him­ the greatest player in tennis history.

Look precisely and without emotions to what­ Nabucodonosor says in post 70 !! And think about it­ well, because we live in a time when Federer is a step­ close to be praised like GOD!! This is ridiculous­ having in mind too many negative traits he possesses­ both as a player and a human character­ ....Congratulations, Nabucodonosor, for thinking with­ your own brain!! You said it in a few words and none of­ them can be denied for a minute!! Federer is an image­ created by people who have a need to worship somebody­ ..even the leading players use him as an excuse for­ their own inconsistency and lack of character - wrong­ choice, people! I will not comment him as a player­ though a lot of his "merits" can be easily­ refuted - I only state that from a pure human point of­ view this hypocratic modern idol is disgustingly false!­
Bravo, Nabucodonosor! Courage is needed to say things­ the way you did..Congratulations!

I doubt about what really happened at RG, but I­ don't assert anything. For me Roger IS one of the­ greatest tennis player ever specially for: he has never­ been injured, never quitted any match, he was at the­ top for so long period and he is still at the top. If­ he win Wimbledon this time, I'll consider Federer­ the greatest.

Comment No. 72.

excellent posting.

Federer's and Nadal's 1-2 rankings ensure that­ these two players can only meet in finals (they also­ met in 3 semifinals) - anyway both has to and had to go­ deep to a tournament. Whether they play each other or­ not depends on both player's ability to REACH those­ semifinals and finals.
It's true that Nadal leads­ Federer 13-7, but they played 11 out of 20 matches on­ clay, Nadal's favourite surface, where no player­ could beat him in the last 3 years but Federer. Nadal­ is definitely a better clay court player, so he has a­ huge advantage when playing Federer on clay. That­ Federer has managed to play him 11 times on clay in­ semifinals and finals is impressive - it means that he­ barely missed out on an opportunity. Nadal - on the­ contrary - has missed lots of opportunities to play­ Federer on hard court: if we count only the last 4­ years and only the Grand Slams, he missed 5 hard court­ GS finals where he could have faced Federer (as Federer­ played them all and won them all). Not mentioning other­ hard court tournaments. So that their head to head­ record is such does not mean that Nadal is better,­ because plenty of times he simply failed to get to the­ final where Federer awaited him.

i think federer not the best all time but is one of the­ best player in the open era.Don't forget Bjorn­ Borg,Ivan Lendl,Rod Laver and some more many best­ player .I think Bjorn Borg is one of best player he din­ attend the Australia open also can get many grand slam­ titles and he is the only man 3 years get French Open­ and Wimbledon Grand slam titles

Frauderer = overrated, selfish, narcissistic, arrogant,­ fame-obssessed hypocrite with an overgrown cult of­ personality.

Forget the stats, just watch Federer play a set of­ tennis and you know you're watching the best ever.

Starting from 2007 Roger is losing constantly and­ especially against top 5 players. Not only Rafa,­ Murray has 6:2 record against Federer. Winning RG­ changed a little bit the picture, letting the emotions­ to speak. Perhaps Roger can be considered as one of the­ best, but for sure NOT the best.

It is based on facts not emotions. Roger is the­ ultimate entertainer. His tennis and lingual­ versatility. His humility and simplicity. I can only­ thank God that he reigned in my time. Nadal is a good­ player but lacks all these qualities. They are­ incomparable. All well meaning tennis players have said­ that he is the greatest with or without RG.

yes nadal is great; yes he is one of the greatest­ claycourters of all time; yes he is 23; and yes he has­ 6 GS. However it is quite unfare for all of you Rafans­ to put him at the same level of Roger federer. Nadal­ wins more or less than 1GS per year (he won 2 last year­ but i dont see him do the same feat this season) and he­ still is 8 GS behing of federer. In the next few years­ Nadal will win many GS (RG and PROBABLY wimbledon) as­ long as his body allows him to but so will Roger­ federer. Honestly i don't see Nadal winning more­ than 2 hard courts GS. Right now, Nadal is at his peak­ and, as we all saw last weak, he lost on his favourite­ surface; on his favourite tournament in the 4th­ round!!!! Since WIMBLEDON 2004 ROGER HASN'S MISSED­ A SINGLE SEMI FINAL ON A GS. And for all of you saying:­ "oh dude but how can he be the greatest ever if he­ has a 7-13 record against nadal?" Well for that­ answer I ADVISE YOU TO SEE TOADOPOPOVA'S COMMENT ON­ THIS ARTICLE (COMMENT Nº 20-40 I'M NOT QUITE SURE).

federer is got to be the best of all time the man has­ reached 20 consecutive major semi finals no player has­ ever shown that level of consistency while he may not­ win all the 'lesser' tournaments any more but­ wen its crunch time in all the big matches he steps up­ and handles the pressure so much better than the rest­ (wiv the exception of rafa) also been an unbeliveable­ ambassabor for tennis

I'm sooo happy to see all Federer Haters saying­ "NO NO NO NO He is not the great " they all­ are so pathetic and look like there are a bit panic :D­ ... they make me laugh ... Federer continue giving your­ best so we all can see what is perfect game (even if­ losing ) Sorry for my poor poor english! :)

I WILL TELL YOU ALL ONE THING..... FEDERER THE BEST AF­ ALL TIME !!! AND HE WILL PROVE THAT TO YOU­ ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL !!!!! HE WILL WIN WIMBLEDON AND­ RETURN TO THE PLACE WHERE HE BELONGS!!! WORLD N1 ,­ CHAMPION OF ALL TIMES !!! NADAL ITS N1 JUST UNTIL­ FEDERER WANTS!! AND NOW HE­ WANTSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS !!!!! FEDERER­ SIMPLE THE BEST­ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!­ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11