If Federer Can't Win, The Greatest Era Is Over

Boris GodzinevskiCorrespondent IIDecember 2, 2008

It is far from insanity to claim Federer as the greatest male tennis player in human history.

When you factor in modern era competition, the whole world to face and how you conquer it, human eyes have seen the greatest era of tennis played by the greatest ever.

Nadal taking over the reigns simply means it has ended, or is coming to an eventual end.

Rafael Nadal will never touch the greatness of Roger Federer, and let's be realistic about it, this is not to say Nadal isn't ONE of the greatest tennis players in human history, for he is, imagine he breaks the vaunted Borg curse and wins a fifth consecutive French Open crown?

However he will never be mentioned as THE greatest male tennis player, his style of play can only last him so long and even if he finally dominates as Federer once did by winning the hard court Slams, the dominance won't shine for four whole seasons, or even three.

Roddick has his role in the greatest era, too, as did many, but who is left now?

Djokovic has proven inconsistent, and even though Murray has fanfare and is fun to watch, a seemingly two-man battle between him and Rafa will not be the same as with Federer.

There will not be an aura of greatness, because Nadal can lose, and does lose, and not rarely, as Federer once did.

And let's be honest here, who will care if the 2010 Wimbledon Championship is fought between Mario Ancic and Ernests Gulbis? Anyone? Really?

Cause that is exactly what's ahead on the radar, it will be the same time period as 2000-03 where you had aging wariors in Agassi and Sampras, and Kuerton on clay, and various one Slam wonders.

The same will arise between 2010-12.

Murray and Nadal will not dominate as some may think, but 2009 will see Murray make at least one Slam Final.

Federer may not be done yet, but it's hard to imagine him winning three-of-four Slams again, perhaps two.