I'm a 5.0 rated player, so I know some of tennis. For Federer to rank as the all-time best, he'd have to eclipse at least one of the most important records... 1. Most Grand Slams... Federer 10, Sampras 14 2. Most Tournament Victories... Federer 46, Connors 109 3. Most Weeks Ranked #1... not sure on the exact number, but I think Federer is about 1/2 that of Sampras. While he is certainly the cream of contemporary elites, he's not yet done enough to crown him as "Best". That said, watching Federer play tennis is like watching Woods play golf, or Gretzky in his prime... If you're a sport fan, it's a treat to watch the great ones play the games at which we trifle.
Seems like it is hard to crown him the best ever when previous generations had to play with wooden rackets. That being said, Federer is the best I've ever seen (on TV). I will always remember him taking out Sampras at Wimbledon when Sampras was still playing well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XSje6Aptac
Several years back, Agassi won a tough match over Federer in a Davis Cup tie... Federer was about 18-19 years old, and Agassi said, "Keep an eye on this kid... he's going to be something..." Personally, I think Federer is probably the best ever, but it's difficult to compare players from prior eras. The physics of today's game require lots of power, speed, and stamina. Back in Laver's day, it was more of a finesse game. So.... could today's power-game great defeat yesterday's finesse-game great? Of course. Though Laver was the greatest of his era, could he have competed with the best power players of today? Probably not. (Had it been a "power era" 40 years ago, Laver might not have been top dog...)
i agree its hard to really tell who is was the best... BUT... The match i watched Laver beat Art Ashe both of them had metal racquets and it was a total complete power game... Laver hit the ball as hard as any body... The thing that sets Laver apart was that he not only played a complete power game but also went from line to line to line... today you see a lot more jockeying of position with much safer shots... even Jack Kramer thought Laver over hit the ball as in too hard... too many winners... especially on the return of serve... Ashe's serve was total and complete power serve that was considered one of the best of all time... Now i agree in Tilden's time in was finesse with the French Teams... but not in the 60's and 70's...
a little bit pointless discussion but still interesting enough to join... Firstly, I do not think it is fair to compare 60s with 2007. Those respective guys were kings in their own times and that's all that matters in sport. In other words - only direct competition / match matters. Everything else is just humility and respect. Next, I don't doubt for a second that No.1 in 60s would be crushed by e.g. No 10 today. The game is completely different, physically and mentally as well. Today preparation is more involved, nutrition is much better etc etc. Every sport goes through its own Darwinism. Easy sport for historical comparison is a sprint - just look at 100 meters record today and 50 years ago - a difference of more than half a second (when you normalize it to electronic clock). I used to be a sprinter and 0.2 second difference on 100m is a difference of class (not of No.1 vs No.2 guy). That said we all admire Jesse Owens - and it does not matter that we know he would be beaten today by 16yr old athlete.
Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately as with all things on ET, everything has to be a "my daddy's bigger than your daddy'' argument. I posted in the psychology thread because I was hoping that ET's tennis players could elaborate on the mental game, and why Federer is so good at it and how that can be related to trading. I don't have any competitive experience in tennis, so I can't really appreciate that factor fully. It just seems to me that even on a shot for shot basis, anyone on a good day can win. By anyone, I mean the top 5-6, including Nadal, Roddick, Gonzalez, Blake. Look at Gonzo, for the first set he was neck to neck with Federer until the tie break, at which point his mounting anger/frustration got the better of him. Gonza also produced some phenomenal shots, but he lost his cool before he could make Federer lose his. Federer seems to be superhuman in the sense that no matter how many points he is down, he always stays cool and focused whereas the other top 5 can't sustain their focus for as long. What impresses me further is that it is well documented how he used to be just like all the others, getting angry, throwing his racket around (like Roddick did in his match against him), negative thoughts. He also lost consistently for three full years after turning pro, but had a turning point when he beat Sampras and started to believe in himself. Suddenly, he was playing more calmly, wasn't shouting like a beast like others do (some of the better ones are Blake, Roddick etc). Just keeping quiet and his upper body/facial expressions very still. I find that quite telling and think that has a lot to do with his turnaround.
Rod Laver no doubt is one of the greatest. Two Grand Slams with a seven year spread, hard to do! Keep in mind three of the grand slams were played on grass. If he were playing today, with todays technology and fitness regimes. He would do it again...twice..we'll never know! In the era of the 90's alot of the great players had one or two BIG weapons...Sampras, serve and forehand. Agassi, footwork and groundstrokes. Becker, serve and physicality. Wilander, tactics and mentality( unfortunaly after his fathers death he could not keep his level up). Lendl, simply Hard Work( a talent in itself)! How many finals was Lendl in, something like 8 or 9? Why Federer is considered the greatest ever so far ? Because he exhibits ALL of the qualities ALL of great players before him. Even ones that I failed to mention. What ever they had he has. And if he does not have it I'm sure with his perception he is working on it .
You bring up a good point. When I play tennis and my opponent is yelling, I know I've got a good shot at winning. In the Australian, Gonzo looked like he wasn't quite as fit as Federer. That can be all the edge that Federer needs. Federer has an air of invincibility around him and it seems like the majority of his opponents just self destruct. His opponents seem to go into the match thinking "Well, let's see how long I can make this match last." Can't wait for the French Open. I hope Nadal can regain his form and meet Federer in the finals.