Is Roger Federer the Best in Tennis History?

When Swiss tennis star Roger Federer won the Wimbledon Men's Championships this past Sunday, he broke Pete Sampras' all-time record of 14 grand slam singles titles and the discussion started - is Federer the "greatest ever".

The remarkable Federer defeated American Andy Roddick in a five set thriller that  lasted over four hours and was capped off with an unforgettable 16-14 fifth set. This was truly one of the best matches the tennis world has ever seen - nobody could have dreamed up this one.

Federer has done something no one before him has done and the total of 15 majors he now can claim is likely to grow.  The 27-year-old has a lot of tennis left to play. 

Federer is one of the toughest competitors we've ever seen.  He's got a billion dollar backhand, a knack for making a big shot every time he needs to and he has increased the speed of his serve to over 130 mph.

So is this man the greatest tennis player of all time?  He's got 15 majors!

When talking about the greatest ever, it always leads to the comparison of different eras.  Though this makes for great discussion, comparing eras is usually an exercise in frustration that doesn't produce an ounce of conclusivity.

Was Jesse Owens a better sprinter than Carl Lewis?  Owens was almost a full second slower in the 100-yard dash but the tracks were of a different consistency.  The running shoes and training methods were different.

But in regards to Federer's incredible record, and he's done it in an amazingly short time, there's something else that has to be considered-something that might explain why he has been able to accomplish what so many of the greats of the game could not.

It's competition.  Although it's impossible to really compare players from different eras, one thing that's always related to the discussion is the amount of competition a player encountered during their career.

This is where I jump off the Federer band wagon because it seems that from the time he became the ATP's dominant player, he has had only one serious threat- only one player on the tour that is capable of winning any time he gets on the court with him.

Federer's admirers claim "it's not a lack of competition, but a tribute to his greatness"  and once again, we're stuck in an unending debate when we try to break down this topic.

Rafael Nadal has only won six majors but he is four years younger than Federer and for the last two-three years, he has given Federer more than he wants. 

Nadal is 13-7 lifetime against Federer.  He's 5-2 against Federer in majors and he has won the last three majors they've played.

Nadal showed he can play on grass when he defeated Federer in the 2008 Wimbledon final and he won the 2009 Australian Open, on a hard court.

Is he a better player than Federer at the moment?  If he isn't better, it certainly appears he's caught up to him.

Federer joined the ATP in July, 1988 but it was in 2001 when he really emerged as a player. 

His first ATP win came in February of that year at the Milan Indoors, and in that same month he won three matches for Switzerland in their Davis Cup victory over the United States. 

That same year he reached the quarter-finals at Wimbledon and was ranked 14th in the world.  In 2003, he would win the Wimbledon singles championship, his first win of a major.

The early part of his career was the end of the Sampras-Agassi years.  Agassi won the last major of his career at the Australian Open in 2003 and Sampras' last major was at the 2002 U.S. Open.

Gustavo Kuerten had won the French Open in 2000 and 2001 and Marat Safin won his first major at the U.S. Open in 2000.  Safin would win one more major – the 2005 Australian Open.

Australian's Lleyton Hewitt had won the 2001 U.S. Open and Wimbledon in the following year.

There are the Roddicks, Dokovics and a couple of others that have one major to their credit but it's safe to say that after Nadal, the competition, relative to other eras, is questionable.

When people ask me about Federer they want to know how I can doubt that he is the greatest.  I concede that 15 majors is awesome, but I tell them about the hey-day of tennis – the 10-year span between 1976-85.

If one looks at those years they will see that there were about seven reasons why Federer would have likely had real trouble winning so many majors if his career spanned this time frame.

The seven reasons with their lifetime total for majors are as follows: Guillermo Vilas (4), Boris Becker (6), John McEnroe (7), Mats Wilander (7), Ivan Lendl (8), Jimmy Connors (8) and Bjorn Borg (11).

One has to question if Federer could have won so many majors if he  played the same time these greats were in the game. 

Borg had the five year run at Wimbledon (1976-80) and the five year run at the French Open (1977-81).  McEnroe won three straight U.S. Opens (1979-81), and Lendl won three straight (1985-87).

At any other time during this era, there were always 10 or 12  players on the men's tour that had to be considered real factors in any tournament they entered.

Connors won four U.S. Opens and won at least one major on grass, hard-court and clay.

Borg won 11 majors but couldn't win the U. S. Open.  Did he have trouble with the surface or did he have trouble with the competition?

Toward the end of this period Wilander and fellow Swede Edberg started winning majors.

There were other good players;  Johan Kriek won back to back Australian Opens in 1981 and 1982 and Roscoe Tanner and Vitas Grulaitas were tough outs.

Could Federer have won 15 majors against these guys?  Could he have won five straight Wimbledon singles titles?  It's a guess.

Roger Federer is a tennis phenom.  He's unbelievable in his play and the way he carries himself.  Unless Nadal comes back strong from his leg injury, Federer is going to amass an almost unreachable record of majors won.

With this said, one has to always wonder if Roger Federer could have dominated during the years of the hey-day of tennis, the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s.