Roger Federer: Is He Really the Greatest Ever?

There is no question that when it comes to natural all-around ability and gift, Federer is perhaps the greatest player ever. Compared to the past greats, he really can do everything well and has no weakness.

However, there are two main factors that really make me doubt that he is the greatest player ever:

1) The competition he has faced in the last six years vs. the competition that was there in the 1980s and 1990s, and

2) His mental toughness: Would he really be the best ever in this regard?

I'll start with the first item.

There's no denying the fact that it's been thinner at the top this decade than in previous decades. In the '80s and the first part of the '90s, there were numerous multiple-grand-slam winners at the top at the same time, not just Federer and Nadal like we've seen in the past several years.

Ivan Lendl played in more Grand Slam finals than anyone past or present (though that may change soon, of course). Sure, he had an 8-11 record in those finals, but out of the 11 finals he lost, 10 of them were against players who had at least six Grand Slam finals at the end of their careers.

With the exception of Agassi or Nadal, we can't say that about the players Federer has beaten to win his Slams.

But you don't even have to get up to that level. Let's compare Todd Martin and James Blake, both having had a career high ranking of No. 4.

Todd Martin got to two Grand Slam finals, and had a very good, winning five-set record. James Blake, on the other hand, hasn't been past the quarters of a Slam and has only a 4-11 5-set record.

I think the difference is noticeable here, and you can probably find very similar comparisons between top 10 players of the same rank this decade and the top 10 players of other times, with the same rank.

Another measure of the competition is the fact that for the most part, players play right into Federer's game. Federer is, above all else, a brilliant shotmaker. Most of the players today play right up his alley, allowing Federer a great chance to execute his great shots.

James Blake (with the exception of the 2008 Olympics), and other top 10 players are just cannon fodder for Federer's game. Murray and Nadal, on the other hand, really take it to Federer, standing toe to toe with him, neutralizing his great ability.

But these days, players who can do that to Roger are few. Even these highly touted up and comers, such as Del Potro or Cilic, have done little to negate Federer's brilliant offense.

I am certain that had Federer played in the '80s or '90s (with respect to the technology of those times), he would have had a much less dominating record over so many top players. Those greats had enough mental toughness and variety of court strategy to beat him. Federer would beat them at times, yes, but not such a vast majority of the time like we see now.

Now, let's look at the second item: mental toughness.

As wonderfully gifted as Federer is, I just cannot put him up there with Nadal, Lendl, Sampras, or Connors in terms of being such a great clutch, gutsy player. It shows when Roger plays Nadal.

Nadal has clearly gotten into his head. I really can't put Federer up there with Becker either for clutch toughness, but Becker unfortunately had a lot of outside circumstances which made him underachieve. Even his former coach Ion Tiriac says that.

Now don't get me wrong. Federer has achieved a lot, and given a lot. He has won some matches under difficult situations, like against Nadal at the 2007 Wimbledon final, or against Agassi in the 2004 U.S. Open quarterfinals.

He is undoubtedly one of the most awesome, gifted players in all of sport. But there just weren't as many different kinds of players that Federer had to face, a whole lot of different times, like the players of previous eras.