How can Federer claim to be the greatest ever if he is not even the greatest playing today? A quick glance at the world rankings show that Federer is in fact number two in the world, with Rafael Nadal at number one. Nadal also has the upper hand in grand slam finals, having defeated him in the last three they have competed. In fact, Federers last two victories in slams (US 08 & French 09), have occured when Nadal had already been knocked out. Without showing that he can actually beat Nadal in a grand slam he cannot claim to be the greatest.

When considering who is the greatest of all time, one has to consider on the one hand a player's career accomplishments, and how well he was able to play when at his absolute best. While Federer clearly surpasses Nadal in career accomplishments and consistency (so far), it is equally clear that Nadal's peak performance bests Federer's. Rafa used to have superiority only on clay (but remember that he beat Roger on Miami's hard court when he was only 17), but he has now mastered Roger on grass at Wimbledon and on hard court at the Australian Open. Rafa returns better than Roger, and covers the court better--partly because he's more athletic and partly because Roger's forehand preference is more extreme than Rafa's, to the detriment of Roger's footwork. He's not as accurate with the forehand as Roger, but that's made up for by his superior topspin. And Rafa has more tenacity and mental toughness. So in one respect Roger is tops in his era but in another respect he's only number two. I would argue that Rod Laver and Bill Tilden led their eras in both respects.

No one else in consideration for greatest all time tennis player title held the number 1 spot for their whole career. Federer I believe is on the verge(if nadal drops out of sw19-2009 and fed wins, fed becomes number 1) of holding the most weeks at number 1 title if he doesnt have it already. Although Nadal has federer's number one to one, Federer is better against the rest of the ATP.

There is only 1 reason why Nadal has a positive record against Federer, even though Federer dominated everyone (Nadal included) from 2004 until Wimbledon 2008: Nadal was the best on clay, whereas Federer was the second best. Therefore, Federer and Nadal played in many clay-court finals, and Nadal clearly leads the head-to-head on clay. Federer however was (and probably still is) the better player on other surfaces. His head-to-head is positive against Nadal on other surfaces. The reason he hasn't beaten Nadal more often on other surfaces is because until recently, Nadal wasn't even second best on other surfaces, and thus didn't make it to the final of big tournaments away from clay. And when he did, he lost to Federer (Wimbledon 2006, 2007, Masters cup 2005, 2006).

The fact that Nadal didn't make it to the final in Federer's last two grand slam wins just highlights the fact, how impressive it is that Federer has reached 20 straight grand slam semi-finals and 15 of the last 16 grand slam finals!

If you do not want to concede that Federer is the greatest of all time fine (although he has a strong case), but don't think of saying he isn't the player of his gengeration. Federer has won 15 Grand Slam titles. Who ever claims Federer's 08 US and 09 French titles are bogus because he didn't play Nadal has to be the biggest tool and planet Earth. You can't play who isn't there. You can't expect Federer to pull out of a tournament because Nadal was dropped in earlier rounds. If he is not the best of his generation how can you claim he has had mediocre competition as a recent as why he isn't the best ever. All the years Nadal was & still behind Federers at no 2 spot showing who is best, if Nadal is best player he should be at no 1 not at no 2,

A quick look over the past five years or so shows that Mens tennis has been virtually monopolised by Federer and Nadal. Only the Australian open has had someone other than these two win the title since 2004. The other three grand slams of Wimbledon, French and the US have been totally dominated by these two, with many of the finals being competed by them aswell. A look at the points on the ranking system also shows a significant gap between them and Andy Murray who is third. This lack of serious competition, which may not have been experienced by other greats such as Borg, Connors, Sampras etc is a further argument as to why the Swiss cannot lay claim to the title of greatest ever.

This argument cannot continue to be used - 5 years ago Federer's detractors maintained he had no competition. We have since seen Nadal who, to his credit, has accumulated 6 GS and must be considered a worthy opponent. You can't now say Fed needs someone else to challenge him as well!! Borg, Connors, McEnroe was a magnificant time for tennis no doubt but perhaps that is another debate. Sampras didn't belong to an age of unremitting tennis genius - he had flaws on clay. Every year a new clay court specialist would emerge (e.g. Rios, Kuerton, Muster) to challenge his no1 spot and Pete would struggle to keep his position (hence he never got 237 weeks continuous at 1). Besides, Murray got to number 2 last year, behind federer of course :o) , so its not just Nadall challenging. And also there Del Potro to consider now - another GS winner. Thankfully Rog has a 6-1 record over him and lets remember the 6-3 6-0 6-0 he gave him in the Aus Open!!

He's the greatest.

The fact of the matter is that Federer emerged just as a great generation of tennis players were retiring. If you look at the players Pete Sampras had to play against - it is truly amazing that he managed to win 14 grand slam titles. The field was much tougher than it is today and that is one major factor that counts against him. Although the Swiss is undoubtedly a great player - the lack of competition has helped in his spell of dominance. Pete Sampras was competing against the likes of Agassi - Rafter - Kafelnikov - Ivanisevic - Chang - Courier - Martin - Brugera - Kuerten - Phillapousis and even Becker and Edberg -in an era where it was not uncommon for there to be four different grand slam winners in a year - showing that the strength in depth was much greater than in this current generation. In fact Federer had to wait until he was 22 to win his first grand slam - which coincided with Sampras's ageing generation beginning to call time on their careers.

I don't think even Roger Federer is naive enough to believe that he would have won the French open had Nadal been fully fit and who knows what would have happened at Wimbledon had that been the case. Federer knows that Nadal at his very best is the better player (the 2008 Wimbledon final proved that) - having come off second best in five grand slam finals and a 13 -7 head to head proves that Nadal has got his number. Federer is a great player - but there will always be niggling doubts about whether he is the greatest.

I do not think that there can be any doubt that Federer is a phenomenal tennis player and certainly a candidate for greatest ever - but Rafael Nadal is without doubt a real spanner in the works in Federer's otherwise flawless career. Arguments and convenient excuses can be made about Federer's fitness when he loses - and conversely Nadal's injury problems overlooked - when it benefits Federer (French Open 2009) but the fact of the matter is that Rafa first clashed with Federer when the Spaniard was an injury free seventeen year old and dispatched Federer in straight sets.

This was in 2004, the year of his inexorable rise and saw him at the peak of his powers, yet Nadal emerged as the victor. In twenty subsequent match ups as mentioned previously Nadal has a considerable 13 - 7 lead across all surfaces. 9 - 2 clay, 3 - 3 hard, 2 - 1 grass. But their 3 previous Grand Slam contests - crucially - across all surfaces, saw Nadal triumphant.

20 matches is more than adequate for comparison - (Borg - Mcenroe played 14. Lendl - Wilander played 22 and Agassi - Courier matched up 12 times). So the bottom line is that Nadal has tested Federer 20 times and won 13 - that means that Federer has scored only a 35% success rate, which in most tests would be a fail. This is a very significant dent - in Roger Federer's otherwise immaculete career and as such cannot easily be dismissed.

Federers achievements frankly speak for themselves. He is only the sixth man in Tennis history to win all four grand slam tournaments, and has equaled Pete Sampras record of 14 grand slam victories. He held the ranking of number 1 for a record 237 consecutive weeks. He has contested 15 of the last 16 grand slam finals, and has featured in the semi finals or better at the last 20. In 2007 he equaled Bjorn Borgs record of five consecutive Wimbledon victories and is the only person in history to win five US and Wimbledon championships. He also won a gold medal at the Beijing Olympics in 2008 for the mens doubles. The list of records and victories could continue into an essay, and after digesting this glittering record of achievement, it is virtually impossible to argue against him being the greatest.

Greats like Todd Martin??? I only thank god Federer isn't up against the likes of that :-s

And Federer's ascendency came after Hewitt had dominated for a year and a half - Sampras was well gone.

I don't really think Federer was at his best in wimbledon 2008 - I was surprised it went to 5 sets. Had he been at his best he would have won. But I still think Nadal at his best would win on clay.

13-7 is really meaningless (read the comments in previous posts). Nadal is 4-4 against Davydenko so are we to assume they are equally great players? Also Nadal hasn't won a tournament in something like 9 months. It's a little annoying that Federer has only played him once in that time (Madrid). So all the other players are getting to spank him - Fed could have really improved his record (but as I said - meaningless) ;)

Pete Sampras did not win his 14 until he was into his 30's, Federer is just 27, so it is perfectly conceivable that Federer will not only go on to break that record, but go on to smash it. Federer has also completed his 14 in considerably less grand slams than it took Sampras to achieve his. If he goes on to win 18-20 slams, which is perfectly possible considering his record to date, then how can he not be considered the best?

Many people have argued that Federer is the most aesthetically pleasing player of all time, with his playing style similar to that of a Brazillian footballer etc. It is his level of specialism which is also outstanding. Jimmy Connors has stated that ""In an era of specialists - you're either a clay court specialist, a grass court specialist or a hard court specialist... or you're Roger Federer^[1]

1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer#Rivalry_with_Rafael_Nadal

What an excellent argument against -------------> As it comes from a Nadal fan I thought I'd write a comment to praise Rafa on his skills on the court.

Nadal is not the number 1 tennis player, however Federer will one day (probably soon) lose that title and I hope it falls to Rafa. He has achieved much and is still only 23 which many forget, what with the arrival of younger players.

I hope he recovers from his injury and is able to compete as it has been quite a sorry sight seeing the slim version being battered about by players who really wouldn't stand a chance against him were he fully fit.

I hope 2010 is good for him and we have some proper Fed v Rafa matches.

----------------------------------------

The best argument that Roger Federer is not the greatest tennis player of all time is that there is no such thing as a best player of all time. Comparisons across eras are insufficiently meaningful.

The next best argument is Rod Laver. You can dismiss his first grand slam because it was only contested against amateurs, but he then proceded to dominate every single one of the professionals for seven years. Who knows how many majors he would have won had he been allowed to compete from '63-'68 and had contract issues not limited him to playing in 5 majors from 1970-1972? His second Grand Slam was against all comers and remains unmatched. He even won the major hard court and indoor tournaments of his day (including in 1969, for a sort of super-Grand-Slam). Despite the fact that he was 30 when the Open Era arrived, he still won 45 open-era tournaments and had an Open-Era won loss percentage of 80%. Amongst people who saw both Laver and Federer play opinion is split as to who was better.

Roger's not done yet. If he accomplishes much more it will become ridiculous to argue against him. But as of now his case for Greatest of All Time is merely good, not conclusive.

If the measuring stick is consistency in the majors then it's hard to argue against Federer as at least the greatest of the Open era. Gonzalez was probably as dominant on the pro circuit from the mid-50's to early 60's as was Laver from 1964-69. If, on the other hand, the comparison is by surface, the debate becomes trickier. At his best, I would pick Federer against anyone on hard courts. On grass, however, I would put him a notch below Sampras and just a hair above Borg, McEnroe or Edberg. Clay is more difficult: he's clearly the 2nd best of his era but I can't say with any conviction that he's better on the surface than Lendl, Wilander or Kuerten at his best. All of this said, I'm still inclined to give him the overall nod for his longevity at the top as well as my belief that his competition hasn't by any means been weak. Replace Federer in this era with any of the other greats from the past and I have a hard time picturing them duplicating his results.

In his generation, tennis was becoming more and more powerful but he showed great mental and physical fitness for the last 6-7 years. 22 GS finals and much more GS Semi finals is no mean an achievement. I don't think anyone can match his fitness.

Ultimately Federer has not only won on all court surfaces but he has the widest variety of shot adaptability known to the game, this in part explains some of his success on all types of court but also invariably does the fact that there is no wasted movement, he is biomechanically perfect and mentally near faultless (the psychological/mental edge Nadal has over him-the only negative); this is his only blemish. The strength and depth in mens tennis and his continued consistent success make him the best ever.