French Open Tennis 2009

[Anish]

Congrats to Federer. He outclassed Soderling today, it was hardly competitive. He deserves all his plaudits - although I think he's become slightly arrogant over the years, I can't question his ability, his professionalism, his commitment, his dedication and his perseverence. To dominate tennis for so long is a magnificent achievement and now he's won his 14th slam and the French Open he has to go down as the best player ever.

[FilboFox]

Is Federer the best of all time? Not in my eyes...

He may have won the same amount of Slams as Sampras and dominated the sport over the last few years but to say he's better than all those other legends of the game is just not feasible. Nobody will ever know who is the greatest of all time or whether there is such a thing as you can't compare eras...

Were Federer, Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Laver, Borg etc. etc. etc. all to have played at their peaks against one another, who's to say which one would come out on top.

Then there is also the change in racquets, style of play... almost everything is different and because of that, whilst I can sit back and recognise that Federer's achievement, albeit something I wished I'd never have to see, is a great one, to say he's the greatest of all time just because he's won 14 Slams and all 4 of them, is not right.

It's just my opinion... I'm sure many will be caught up in the moment and start lauding praise on him no doubt.

[Manwell Pablo]

One more slam and it's not even debate in my eyes. Most Slams won, longest period spent at no.1 in the world ever, won all four slams. Greatest of all time.

[Anish]

Is Federer the best of all time? Not in my eyes...

He may have won the same amount of Slams as Sampras and dominated the sport over the last few years but to say he's better than all those other legends of the game is just not feasible. Nobody will ever know who is the greatest of all time or whether there is such a thing as you can't compare eras...

Were Federer, Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Laver, Borg etc. etc. etc. all to have played at their peaks against one another, who's to say which one would come out on top.

Then there is also the change in racquets, style of play... almost everything is different and because of that, whilst I can sit back and recognise that Federer's achievement, albeit something I wished I'd never have to see, is a great one, to say he's the greatest of all time just because he's won 14 Slams and all 4 of them, is not right.

It's just my opinion... I'm sure many will be caught up in the moment and start lauding praise on him no doubt.

So what does he have to do to become the all time greatest player in your book? Your reasoning means that he could win 30 slams but still wouldn't be considered the best because all his predecessors played in different eras with different racquets etc. Let's face facts, the Four Grand Slams a year have been around for so long now that Sampras, Borg, Becker etc all had a fair crack at the whip to win all the slams. The fact that Federer has won every single major and won 14 slams at the age of 27 should give him some claim to be the best ever, right?

Federer's now got to 20 consecutive semi finals (at least) - that's five years of being in the top 4 of every single Slam. He's dominated mens tennis like no other person has, or is ever likely to. He's already the greatest ever in my eyes but if he wins one more slam there'll be nothing left to argue because then it will be fact.

[FilboFox]

Yes, and I accept all that, but were he to have played in the era's that the others played in, would he have had the same success?

It's something that we'll never know and therefore, I think that to call someone the 'greatest of all time' based on their achievements now is wrong.

I will quite happily say that he has been the greatest player on the mens tour for the last decade... but that is where it stops. It's just too difficult to compare him with others because of the players they had to play, styles, racquets... so many things are different that it was almost a completely different game back then.

[Manwell Pablo]

Yes, and I accept all that, but were he to have played in the era's that the others played in, would he have had the same success?

It's something that we'll never know and therefore, I think that to call someone the 'greatest of all time' based on their achievements now is wrong.

I will quite happily say that he has been the greatest player on the mens tour for the last decade... but that is where it stops. It's just too difficult to compare him with others because of the players they had to play, styles, racquets... so many things are different that it was almost a completely different game back then.

Whys it matter? They were all using the same rackets so it's not like Federer has an advantage. Connors and McEnroe have both said he is the best player of all time (i.e Better than them) and Sampras has come out and said something similar today.

[maddog]

Yes, and I accept all that, but were he to have played in the era's that the others played in, would he have had the same success?

It's something that we'll never know and therefore, I think that to call someone the 'greatest of all time' based on their achievements now is wrong.

I will quite happily say that he has been the greatest player on the mens tour for the last decade... but that is where it stops. It's just too difficult to compare him with others because of the players they had to play, styles, racquets... so many things are different that it was almost a completely different game back then.

The players are stronger physically these days, the game is played at a faster place, better equipment means the ball travels much much faster.

Theres absolutely no doubt Federer is the greatest tennis player of all time.

IMO it's a lot harder to win a grand slam now than it was 10-20 years ago, obviously i have nothing to back that opinion up like most of my opinions , i just feel the ball is hit a lot harder and players are stronger physically than back in the day.

[FilboFox]

Yes, I agree that things have moved on since the days of past winners that we could compare... but you have to try and put it into context to compare them. What Federer has achieved is great, no doubts about it... but I still maintain that he is the best of this era so far... just not the best of all time because it is simply not possible, because of the differences in the game and how it's played, to compare them fairly.

As for players coming out and saying that he's the best... well they all do don't they... they aren't going to turn around and say "Nah, he's done well but I'm still better." are they.

I also think that this era where Federer has won most of his Slams has been weaker than past era's too... I'm not going much into it as it'll only start a whole other argument but I do think that competition at the top of the mens game has been severely weak until just recently when Nadal, Djokovic and, mores the pitty, Murray appeared on the tour.

[Manwell Pablo]

Yes, I agree that things have moved on since the days of past winners that we could compare... but you have to try and put it into context to compare them. What Federer has achieved is great, no doubts about it... but I still maintain that he is the best of this era so far... just not the best of all time because it is simply not possible, because of the differences in the game and how it's played, to compare them fairly.

As for players coming out and saying that he's the best... well they all do don't they... they aren't going to turn around and say "Nah, he's done well but I'm still better." are they.

I also think that this era where Federer has won most of his Slams has been weaker than past era's too... I'm not going much into it as it'll only start a whole other argument but I do think that competition at the top of the mens game has been severely weak until just recently when Nadal, Djokovic and, mores the pitty, Murray appeared on the tour.

So you view Davydenko Nalbadian Sampras Safin Agassi Roddick Blake Hewitt and Henman (who despite being one of the best serve volleys in the game didn't manage a slam in his career during this era) as "Severely weak."

You have some very funny opinions.

Out of interest have you ever watched a Laver, McEnroe or Conners game? Don't know why I've asked that you will undoubtidly say yes even if you haven't/

[shen]

Yes, I agree that things have moved on since the days of past winners that we could compare... but you have to try and put it into context to compare them. What Federer has achieved is great, no doubts about it... but I still maintain that he is the best of this era so far... just not the best of all time because it is simply not possible, because of the differences in the game and how it's played, to compare them fairly.

As for players coming out and saying that he's the best... well they all do don't they... they aren't going to turn around and say "Nah, he's done well but I'm still better." are they.

I also think that this era where Federer has won most of his Slams has been weaker than past era's too... I'm not going much into it as it'll only start a whole other argument but I do think that competition at the top of the mens game has been severely weak until just recently when Nadal, Djokovic and, mores the pitty, Murray appeared on the tour.

The main reason I'd call Federer the greatest ever, is simply that he's the most complete tennis player anyone has ever seen. He started out as a rather inconsistent player, but has turned that around to become the most consistent you'll ever find. No-one can match his Slam records/runs or his major titles. He's physically one of the fittest too, hardly ever been out injured. Tactically he's as good as they get, and for professionalism he's up there with the greatest icons. I'd even say that if it weren't for him, Nadal wouldn't have gotten this good either. And even he is struggling now, because to be able to match or better Federer players have to push themselves beyond their bodies' limits.

Federer deserves this French Open title, and as the others have said: One more slam and there's no way you can argue against it any more...

[shen]

Congrats to Federer. He outclassed Soderling today, it was hardly competitive. He deserves all his plaudits - although I think he's become slightly arrogant over the years, I can't question his ability, his professionalism, his commitment, his dedication and his perseverence. To dominate tennis for so long is a magnificent achievement and now he's won his 14th slam and the French Open he has to go down as the best player ever.

You're allowed a certain degree of arrogance when you're as good as he is

[FilboFox]

So you view Davydenko Nalbadian Sampras Safin Agassi Roddick Blake Hewitt and Henman (who despite being one of the best serve volleys in the game didn't manage a slam in his career during this era) as "Severely weak."

You have some very funny opinions.

Out of interest have you ever watched a Laver, McEnroe or Conners game? Don't know why I've asked that you will undoubtidly say yes even if you haven't/

Erm yes, I think I would call Davydenko, Nalbandian, Henman and one hit wonders Safin, Roddick and Hewitt pretty damn weak yes! Surely that is highlighted by the rapid rise of Nadal, Murray, Djokovic and Del Potro since they arrived on the scene to replace all of them at the top of that game!

Agassi and Sampras were two fantastic players too... but they weren't exactly at their peaks when Federer was playing at his now were they!

As for watching Connors, McEnroe and Laver... well yes, I have seen them play... ever heard of YouTube and various other video playback sites?

[FilboFox]

The main reason I'd call Federer the greatest ever, is simply that he's the most complete tennis player anyone has ever seen. He started out as a rather inconsistent player, but has turned that around to become the most consistent you'll ever find. No-one can match his Slam records/runs or his major titles. He's physically one of the fittest too, hardly ever been out injured. Tactically he's as good as they get, and for professionalism he's up there with the greatest icons. I'd even say that if it weren't for him, Nadal wouldn't have gotten this good either. And even he is struggling now, because to be able to match or better Federer players have to push themselves beyond their bodies' limits.

Federer deserves this French Open title, and as the others have said: One more slam and there's no way you can argue against it any more...

Now that is possibly the first argument back at me which I can pretty much agree with...

Though I still think it's difficult if not impossible to compare. That's just what I think though.

[andy_croydz]

IMO Federer greatest of all time. He needed that French Open to cement that belief and prove it. If he had never won all 4 Grand Slams people would have questioned whether he was the greatest but I think now it is tough to go against him being the greatest. Sure there have been some unbelievable greats in the game but Federer isn't done yet by a long shot, he could get another 8 Grand Slam titles before he's 30 if he keeps playing at his highest level.

Nadal maybe one day could beat Federers record but I doubt it, Nadal is one of the all time greats and I think the best clay-courter of all time but if he is to beat Federers record he is going to have to win around another 10 Grand Slam titles in the next 4-5 years to rival Federers achievements.

[shen]

Now that is possibly the first argument back at me which I can pretty much agree with...

Though I still think it's difficult if not impossible to compare. That's just what I think though.

Of course it is difficult to compare, just as in any other sport for that matter. But where Sampras, Agassi, Becker, McEnroe, Connors, Borg etc all had one or other weakness, Federer is more or less flawless. He has a very good serve, is a good volleyer, one of the best baseliners, has a fantastic repertoire of shots and has become mentally extremely tough. Up there with Agassi. Some of the others were fairly rigid in their playing style, like the serve & volleyers (Edberg and Becker most notably and to some degree Sampras), others had developed one or two main weapons which they used to great effect but were less good when challenged on their weaker shots. And it's quite paradoxical that you question the strength of the opposition that Federer had to beat in order to win his slams in comparison to Sampras or Connors, when you find it difficult to compare the different periods.