Why Roger Federer Can't Be Considered the Greatest of All Time

When your resumé consists of 16 Grand Slam titles, 99 tournaments won, one Olympic gold medal in doubles, and being ranked No. 1 in the world for 200 consecutive weeks, you should be considered the greatest of all time in your sport right?

Wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I mean Roger Federer's career achievements are impressive, but should he be considered the greatest over Pete Sampras, Bjorn Borg, or Rod Laver? There are a couple things that Federer was unable to accomplish that will deny him the title "Greatest of All Time."

Let's look at five reasons why he will always be considered inferior to aforementioned players.

He Played in a Weak Generation

Now this obviously isn't Roger Federer's fault, but it should be discussed. During Federer's reign at the top of men's tennis, there was little competition that could even come close to beating him.

Lleyton Hewitt was past his prime, Marat Safin never reached his potential, Andre Agassi was already a dad, and Andy Roddick, well he was never as good as he was set out to be when he won the U.S. Open. These were the top players when Federer began his dominance in 2003.

Pete Sampras had to deal with the likes of Andre Agassi (in his prime), Jim Courier, Mats Wilander, Stefan Edberg, Richard Krajicek, Todd Martin, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Boris Becker, Patrick Rafter, and the list goes on.

Had Federer played in a tougher era and achieved the same results, I would definitely consider him the best tennis player that ever lived.

He Never Won the Grand Slam

Even though he did win all four slams, he never won all four of them in a calendar year. This feat has only been accomplished by a few tennis players and only one male.

Rod Laver is the only one to have ever won the grand slam in men's singles. Oh, and he won it twice. It took Federer longer to win all four grand slams than it took to finally put a roof over Centre Court at Wimbledon.

He was unable to beat Rafael Nadal at the French Open, Australian Open, and the U.S. Open finals, which also loses a little credibility.

Which takes me to my next point.

Losing Record Against His Nemesis

The only real competition Roger Federer ever faced was from Spaniard Rafael Nadal. Nadal burst into the tennis scene by beating Federer in the semifinals of the 2005 French Open before beating Mariano Puerta in the final. Little did people know that this was the start of a rivalry.

But how can it be considered a rivalry when one player dominates the other.

Roger Federer's record against Nadal is a measly 8-17. That's a 32 percent winning percentage. It almost reminds you of the Pittsburgh Pirates winning percentage in the last decade.

So how can this catapult him to the top of the men's game if he can't beat his competition?

Losing Record Against Rafael Nadal in Grand Slam Finals

The picture says it all doesn't it?

Roger Federer was unable to overcome Rafael Nadal in six out of eight Grand Slam finals that they've played in. A 2-6 record in the most important matches for a tennis player is nothing to brag about.

Federer was only able to beat Nadal twice in a slam final and both were at the All England Club. Many analysts said that Federer would always dominate Nadal in grass and hard courts, but would be unable to beat Nadal on clay.

Well, Federer has yet to beat Nadal at the French Open and Nadal has won the last four non-clay finals against the Fed-Express.

Had Federer been more successful in the finals, he may have had a shot to be in a league by himself.

Never Won a Singles Olympic Medal or Davis Cup

Even though he did win a doubles Olympic medal with compatriot Stanislas Wawrinka, he never won the singles title. Never even making it to the finals.

He does have one more shot of winning a medal in the 2012 Olympic Games, but it is a long shot with the way Novak Djokovic is playing. He will also have to get through Rafael Nadal, which hasn't been easy for him.

As for the Davis Cup, I understand that it is a team competition, but it is a great accomplishment in a tennis player's career as well as for his country. Novak Djokovic recently won a Davis Cup for Serbia without too much talent in their squad so it is possible. Rafael Nadal (his name seems to come up a lot) has won two Davis Cups but those Spanish teams have had a lot of talent.

If Rafael Nadal ever gets to 16 grand slams, or even gets close, how can he not be considered better than Roger Federer? He played in the same era as Federer and had a favorable winning record against him. 

Federer's legacy will always be overshadowed by his inability to beat Nadal and to earn the title of  "Greatest of All Time."