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 shows 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, with Federers last two victories in slams (US 08 & French 09), coming 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.

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.

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.

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

As tennis pundits we only have certain criteria when determining who the greatest all-time player is. Before Federer, Sampras was not a consensus choice because he never excelled sufficiently on clay. Borg never held number one spot for long enough and never won any other grand slam outside sw19 and roland garros. Laver's achievements have him falling short of Sampras and Federer in grandslam count. This leaves us with Roger Federer. If we compare him to any of the players mentioned earlier, non of them stand a chance in a one on one comparison. Sampras v Fed: frankly Sampras has no tangible advangtage over Federer whilst there are several going the other way, most noteably Fed's clay court achievements. Fed v Borg: Fed has many more grandslams than Borg and has held number 1 for many more years than Borg ever did. Although Borg achieved great things on Clay and Grass, it is hard to say that this feat compares to Fed's resume. Fed v Laver: This is probably the closest comparison. Laver won 2 calendar grand slams. This achievemt alone is frankly ridiculous(in a good way). However, this feat means more now than it did then. At the time I believe 3 out of the 4 grandslams were on grass. So therefore, winning the calendar grandslam was more a show of consistency than versitility. That being said, Federer's achievements over power Laver's when we look at grandslam count, dominances at number 1 spot and winning majors on all 4 surfaces. These achievements plus one's I havent mentioned are all superior to Laver's calendar grand slams when you look at them in total. Needless to say Federer defeats Laver when it comes the battle to gain the greatest player title.

That leaves us asking, "but he isnt even the best of his generation". That is not an accurate statement. The Nadal we know now only fully materialized in 2008. Before 2008, Nadal could not catch up with fed for the number 1 spot. Even though Nadal had fed's number one on one, Federer was better against the rest of the atp, which says more. Nadal is the best player today and of 2008 and 2009. Hoever, from 2003 to 2007, Federer was the greastest active player. Seeing as Fed is nearing 28, he is in the twilight of his career and for most of his fittest life he has been the greatest. This makes him the greatest of his generation to me. Borg and Laver were both not the greatest of their era or atleast such talk would be arguable. Sampras was in fact the greatest of his generation without question, but one cannot claim that his resume matches up to federer's incomplete resume. Although I am a Nadal fan and always support a federer loss, as a tennis player and fan I must give the credit Federer deserves. He has achieved more on the tennis court than any one else in Tennis history and must be accorded the respect he deserves. There is no valid total argument, whilst considering all factors that could deprive him of the title greatest of all time!