Roger Federer: Best Tennis Player of All Time Attacked by Former Pros

A couple of years back, when Roger Federer had six to eight slams under his belt, most former tennis greats heaped considerable praise on him.

Most would say something to the tune of, "If he stays healthy and continues to play the way he is playing he will no doubt become the greatest of all time." However, now that he has remained healthy and has continued to play the way he has, many of these former greats have begun to find any caveat they can, to not declare Federer the greatest of all time.

I guess, simply put, before there was just the possibility that he would stomp on everybody's toes and egos, and now that has become a reality, and some don't like it.

One person that stands out is Rod Laver. You don't have to research too much to find the kind of praise he used to lavish on Federer. He recognized that Federer was a better player than he ever was. Laver even went on to say that if Federer won the French Open, then he would no doubt be the greatest of all time in his book.

He sounded like a generous man. Recently at Wimbledon, Laver was fumbling to find any kind of excuse to give Federer his due. Similar to Bud Collins, you could sense the animosity in his voice.

He said things to the tune of, "I once thought it would be Federer who could do the calendar slam, but he has not," and that he thought  "[Pete] Sampras was a better grass player than Federer." Wow, what a change. I mean, what a thing to say when a man has just broken the biggest record in tennis.

There is no doubt that Federer's record is under more scrutiny than anybody else's record, and it appears that some folks would want him to be something of an immaculate virgin of sorts with no blemishes. Most of these folks really don't look back to scrutinize their own records.

Of course, Laver now wants to cling on to the only thing that some claim (well, old miserable people like Bud Collins), makes him the greatest of all time: two calendar slams. So, I would like to make an invitation for all to focus on Laver's record, and put as much scrutiny on it as they put on Federer, and see if his record is really all that good.

I am not a tennis historian but I know this: The level of competition that Laver had is nothing compared to the level of competition we have today. Laver's first calendar slam was won as an amateur, when professionals were not allowed to play. Can this achievement really count to make him the greatest of all time?

His second slam did include professionals. Laver was already 31 years old and won all slams. What does that tell you about the level of competition? I would like to see that happen today. I would like to invite folks to check into what kind of competition he had. 

Laver did not do too much after that, which does not says a lot about his consistency, or lack thereof. Finally, tennis back in Laver's day was played essentially by Americans, Brits, and Australians. Today that would be a world in which the best players for the last seven years would be, let's see: Roddick, Blake, Henman, Murray, and Hewitt. My God, what level of competition!

In any event, is a calendar slam enough to make someone the greatest of all time?

It seems to me that a calendar slam just means one good year, and with low levels of competition it means even less to me. Even if the competition were high, a calendar slam means just one good year—not enough to call someone greatest of all time in my book.

So, I think that folks just need to relax a little and get off Roger's hair. His achievements speak for themselves and are breathtaking. I only wish we could reduce the amount of negativity coming out of the fans and people with much less on their resume.