Federer, G.O.A.T ?

Question

What's your opinions ?

Do you think Federer is the Greatest player to ever step out on court ?

Many people say he would have to win at the French Open to be conisdered as the greatest of all time.

Does the fact that he has been to the final 3 times in a row and is playing in the same era as, without a doubt, the greatest clay court player ever in Rafa Nadal mean he would still be the greatest ever without wining the French ?

In my opinion he is the best player ever, When hes playing at the top of his game theres no man in history who when also playing at the top of their game could even challenge him.

All posts welcome, If you dont agree, who do you tihnk is the G.O.A.T ?

Answer 1

It depends on what is our scale for G>O<A>T. I still measure it on number of Grandslams a player won... and that would still be Sampras. He won titles on clay also, but not the French. He reached the semis once, though. Even the ATP doesn't have the criteria how to measure a players' greatness. Agassi won the 4 slams on all surfaces but he was not considered GOAT.

Have your own scale, but I still go with the number of slams.

Answer 2

I don't really watch tennis but everytime they play Nadal kills him, so he can't be considered the since he never won the french.  That would be like saying that Chareles Barkley is the best forward but he never won a title so he can't be considered the best.

Answer 3

"I don't really watch tennis but everytime they play Nadal kills him, so he can't be considered the since he never won the french. That would be like saying that Chareles Barkley is the best forward but he never won a title so he can't be considered the best."

Uhhhhh, no...Barkley NEVER won a championship ring in the NBA. Roger has won 12 other major titles. You cannot compare apples against lemons (with Barkley being the latter). The two sports are entirely different. Poor comparison on your behalf.

To the actual question: I would consider Roger (solely IMHO) as the greatest player to play the sport - based on what he can do with his racquet, what he has achieved in such a short period of time, how utterly dominant he has been in the game, the records he has broken and set, the fact he is the ONLY mens player to win three GS tournaments at least three times each, he has comfortably reached three finals at Roland Garros consecutively and one SF...far better than the other era players who always had one weak surface (Lendl and Wilander on grass; Sampras, Becker, Edberg, McEnroe on clay)...

To make 10 consecutive GS finals is a record (and 16 consecutive SF rounds) and this clearly shows he is capable on all surfaces. Had it not been for Rafa, Roger would no doubt have at least once achieved the calendar year slam.

Old argument now, however Roger has to contend with four different surfaces every year. Back in the Laver days and prior, three GS tournaments on grass, then one on clay.

Ever note that Agassi is never considered in arguments for G.O.A.T. despite owning all four slams? Simply because he never dominated the game as Roger or Pete did. He had periods of brilliance and 8-slams in a 18 or 19 year career. He only once ever defended a GS title at the 2001 Australian Open...

Roger has successfully defended his Aust Open Title 06/07; Wimbledon 4 times; and the US Open 3 times. A mark of a champion is not only their ability to win big tournaments, but to back it up and defend them as well.

For the other folks who post - name a player in tennis who has been as utterly dominant as Roger has been and capable of playing so consistently well on EVERY surface over an extended period? Lendl would be the closest of the past 20 years that I can think of as he had a pretty ok grass record in the end and made two Wimbledon Finals - Sampras made ZERO French Finals and one French semi!

Answer 4

you do have a point.. you say that it's unfair to ask him to win against the best clay court player of all time when others who are considered better didn't have to play him at all.. good point..... GOAT??? FUNNY!

Answer 5

I don't think Federer is the greatest.  He has had a wonderful several years of domination, but the years prior to finally winning his slam, only 5 years ago and so far this year are highly unimpressive.  I think Federer is probably the greatest of his generation, the so-called "New Balls" (including Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Ferrero).  He was the last one of them to get to #1 and stayed there the longest.  

In my opinion Sampras is still the greatest player.  He still leads with the longest reign at #1 (284 weeks total), and 6 consecutive years of year-end #1 ranking.  For now Sampras still leads in slams (although I still think Roger will surpass that record).  I think it's also very impressive that Sampras was in the top 10 for 12 years out of 15 years that he played tennis on the tour.  Also how about 9 consecutive years of winning at least 4 titles/year?  

What tarnishes Federer's reputation, I think, is also his losing record against Nadal.  Sampras managed to have winning records against players like Agassi, Courier, Muster, Chang, Becker, which is why I rate Sampras above Federer.