(Photo by Julian Finney/Getty Images)
2. With Sampras in attendance, Federer surpassed his record, earning a 15th Grand Slam title. In your estimation, is Federer now the greatest that's ever lived? If not, what must he still prove?
Silver: In my two cents worth judgment, he is. Sampras never conquered the French clay. Federer did last month.
Let me put it this way: Federer is the best player of the Open Era. Before the Open Era, Laver never played for five years in his prime, and he has 11 titles. So, that’s the only end note to that statement.
In Sampras’ defense, he held the No. 1 ranking longer than Federer, and Bjorg won the French and Wimbledon consecutively for five years (Federer has done that one time). But I still think Federer is the GOAT (Greatest of ALL Time) after Open Era because of his scorching consistency—21 consecutive Slam semi-finals. Beat that.
Allen: Yes, Federer is the greatest ever... probably. Rod Laver says he is the best of his era. But, the final word on this “greatest ever” distinction should be made once his career has ended and not before. It is difficult to gauge the depth and breath of his tennis career while it continues.
Iyer: Yes, he is; if we take into consideration say a Bjorn Borg and compare Roger Federer with him, Federer will emerge as a better player for the simple reason that Borg never won anything except his record winning performances at Roland Garros and Wimbledon, not to mention that he gave it up when he was dethroned by McEnroe in 1981; a true champion never gives up.
If we take Pete Sampras, then he will have to be overlooked because while he managed to grab seven Wimbledon titles, he wasn’t even remotely close to reaching a French Open final, let alone win it; also, statistically while it took 12 years for Pete to achieve his count of 14, it has taken Federer half of that to make it beyond that legend.
His consistency has been remarkable and it’s this consistency that determines and concretes his place as the greatest.
But at the same time, the same argument will be questioned a bit when Federer and Laver will be compared. The man was a legend, winning 198 titles, not to forget two Golden Slams and that, too, not in two consecutive years, but six years apart.
If the rules would have allowed professionals to contest in the slams as opposed to only the amateurs, then Laver’s tally of slam victories would have definitely been more than what Sampras achieved and what Federer was able to surpass, in such a scenario Federer’s validity as the GOAT does remain under a cloud of doubt.
York: Federer clinched the status of best of the Open Era (1969 and after) when he won in Paris. As great as the achievements of Sampras and Borg are, Federer has now clearly overtaken them.
His only true competition now is with pre-Open Era players. Laver won the Grand Slam twice, seven years apart. Pancho Gonzales was the world’s best for eight years. Bill Tilden created the concept of a professional tennis player.
Whether or not Federer is greater than they were can only ever be a matter of opinion.
24 Comments
Loading more comments...
This comment and all replies have been deleted This comment has been deleted Undo delete