Despite Loss, Roger Federer May Still Be the Greatest Player of All Time

Under the bright lights inside Rod Laver Arena, fans marveled at the sight of two of the sport's all-time greats vying for a spot in Sunday's final.

Among the spectators were the broadcasters themselves, as the likes of Patrick McEnroe and Darren Cahill beamed at the level with which these two rivals were taking the game of tennis.

Before the match even began, McEnroe took the observation's a step further when he suggested that the Swiss superstar was in fact the greatest of all time. The asterisk to his said opinion? In order for that statement to carry it's needed weight, Federer would need to walk away from that match with his greatest rival the victor. 

This has become common practice for fans and media over the last few years when debating whether or not Roger Federer is in fact the greatest player ever. A debate that at it's very core is completely arbitrary no matter how you decide to break it down.

For the sake of said arguments, however, is it fair to suggest that a player can or can't be at the top of his or her respected sport if they have a losing record to another player?

The usual argument for those who claim Federer is not the all-time great lies in the idea that a player can't possibly be the best ever if they weren't the best player in their respected era. In other words, Federer has lost more than half of his matches to Rafael Nadal, so how in the world can he possibly be the best to ever play the game of tennis?

Ok, that sort of makes sense. After all, tennis is a game that pits one person against another, leaving little for debate once the umpire utters the words, "game, set, match." 

A player will either win or lose, and you're overall record against another player should accurately suggest if you are better or worse than said player, especially if you've played them as many times as Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal have played one another.

So at it's very basic conception, it makes sense to suggest that Federer isn't the greatest of all time because he isn't the greatest of his era. The problem with that theory, however, is that such a debate needs to be examined past the very simplistic nature that most analysts seem to abide by when discussing this topic.

First off, Roger Federer has a losing record against other people not named Rafael Nadal. Yevegny Kafelnikov for that matter holds a lifetime winning record against the might Fed.

So when plugged into the equation that the media seems to live by, Federer then isn't as good as Yevegny Kafelnikov, right? Do general fans even know who Yevegny Kafelnikov is? Probably not. Is Yevegny Kafelnikov a better tennis player than Roger Federer? No even close.

So there must be something wrong with the general theory that if a player has a losing record to another player, the first player can't be considered to be the best ever over the other, right?

Sure, there is a huge difference in having a losing record to Yevegny Kafelnikov as apposed to 18 career losses to Rafael Nadal, yet this simply suggests that there is no one set of standards we can always use to decide something.

Things are always going to be relative, and too many factors are always at play to simply say someone can't be the best ever just because he isn't the best of his era. It's important to establish the idea that just because a guy has a losing record against another player, it doesn't necessarily mean said player is always better or worse. It's just not that simple.

Another aspect to this debate is the undeniable gap between both player's career peaks. If you dissect Federer's career, it's blatantly apparent that his reign was at its peak during the years of 2003-2007.

During this time, Federer wracked up the bulk of his major titles,(12) all the while facing off against Nadal on only four different occasions. The outcomes? An even split of two, as Nadal's only wins during that time came on the red dirt of Roland Garros. 

Moreover, Federer's dominance manifested itself into victories against eight different players who hold a combined major title count of 15, and all of which Federer holds a winning record against. To examine this even a step further, Federer's twelve victories break down into five Wimbledon titles, four U.S. Open titles and three Australian Open titles.

Nadal's peak, on the other hand, would likely be recognized during his reign from 2006-2010. During this period, Nadal appeared in ten different Grand Slam finals, earning victories in eight of those tournaments.

During said peak, Nadal squared off against Federer on seven different occasions, three of which happened in Paris. On two occasions, when the men met in Federer's prime on a surface other than clay, Federer bested Nadal two separate times on the grass in London. 

During this stretch, Nadal managed two victories against the Swiss great, one coming in the general consensus greatest match ever and another coming during the pair's first meeting down under.  Aside from Federer, Nadal's three other victories came against Robin Soderling, Tomas Berdych and Novak Djokovic, who hold a combined four major titles.

It's undeniable that Rafael Nadal is one of the top two (along with Bjorn Borg) greatest clay court players of the open era. The problem when comparing the two is that of their 27 encounters, 14 of them came on clay. 12 of which were won by Nadal, making up for more than half of his 18 total victories over Federer.

If you were to then take out the victories on clay it's a more even representation. Nadal amassed a modest six victories on grass or hard courts, as Federer managed to pick up a total of nine victories.

Another thing to consider are the nine other Grand Slam final appearances Roger Federer amassed during their respective peaks that Nadal fell short in. Of his six U.S. Open final appearances, Nadal made it past the quarters on only two occasions.

Nadal has also only appeared in the Australian Open final on two occasions in contrast to Roger Federer who has made it to the final Sunday on five separate instances. 

While some of these stats may suggest more than they actually represent, it's a clearer indication that there is more to the rivalry of these two tennis juggernauts than the simplicity of wins or losses.

The final variable to consider when breaking down this debate is the impact of the eye test. The idea that what we see often tell us what our minds are unable to completely come to terms with. Federer's game has always represented just how beautiful the game of tennis can be.

The one-handed back hand and the picture-perfect slice. The trophy-like serve paired with the way in which the Swiss maestro glides around the court like some sort of ghost. When Federer steps off the court he often looks as though he's fresh enough to go straight to his next GQ photo shoot.

There is a swan-like nature to the total package of Roger Federer that is rarely represented in a professional athlete. It's the kind of skill and aura that comes along but once in a lifetime. 

This is in stark contrast against the pavement pounding style of the Spanish bull, the whipping forehand and the bruising two-handed back hand. The gutsy serving and workman-like net game.

When Nadal finishes a match, he looks similar to the coaches who get drenched in Gatorade after a big victory. Nadal represents what the future of tennis looks like. The brutality of the super athletes who are now the make up of the men's game in tennis. Whereas Federer represents the classic nature so proudly represented on the grounds of Wimbledon.

While there is an obvious beauty in both identities, Roger Federer in many ways is the epitome of tennis. His name goes hand in hand with the entirety of the sport itself. Like Montana to football or Jordan to the NBA, there is an inability to ever separate the two. Like Sampras before Federer, he has all but disappeared from the game. Ask yourself if you ever think that is going to happen with Roger Federer? Highly unlikely.

The overall debate of whether or not Roger Federer (or any player for that matter) is in fact the greatest player to ever step foot onto a tennis court is one that is somewhat relative depending upon the person you might ask.

Another person could probably write a similar article and in some way try to shape it in favor for the Nadals, Lavers or Samprases of the world. In some way, that is what makes tennis as a whole so enticing. 

To suggest, though, that Roger Federer (or any player for that matter) can't be considered the best at his sport because of a minor blip on the overall map would cheapen the complete body of work for the player as a whole.

There is more to such a debate then how a player's record looks when stacked up against another. What's the good news, however, to those who like to take part in such a debate?

Even at 30, it doesn't seem like this rivalry is coming to an end anytime soon.