Home > Tennis > Surfacing issue: Why Roger Federer is not the greatest ever tennis player
Surfacing issue: Why Roger Federer is not the greatest ever tennis player
The Swiss master has done it all and won it all, except for the French Open. And unless he gets one over Rafael Nadal on the red court, he cannot win the mantle of all-time number one.
by James Mortimer on 09 May 2008
Email this Article (8) Comments
Free £10 bet when you register at
The one observation that can be laid, that while the history of tennis has seen many fantastic players, they have not been overwhelmingly dominant in the style of some of the ladies of the court.
Pete Sampras, who holds the most Grand Slam titles by any man – would be far down the list when considering how many titles many of the goddesses of the court have held.
One of the finest players to ever have graced the court was Rodney George Laver. Rod was the only player to have won all of the Grand Slams in one year; and he did this twice. He is the only man in the open era to have won the elusive Calender Grand Slam. He won 11 titles in all, twice at the French and US open, three times at his home slam in Australia, and four times at Wimbledon.
His name is well known as the centre where the Melbourne Grand Slam is held; it is named in his honour. Many regard him as the classic male tennis player.
Ivan Lendl was probably the most dominant player in the 1980s – a period of male tennis history that was crowded with elite players. He won eight Grand Slams in his career and competed in 19 Grand Slam finals – reaching at least one slam final every year for 11 years. He was the first man to usher in the now often seen “power game” and was the nemesis of John McEnroe, whom he defeated to win the 1985 US open and become the number one player in the world.
Swede Bjorn Borg also lays claim to being one of the finest men on the court. He won nearly 90 per cent of all Grand Slam matches he competed in – and was the master of clay, winning six French Open titles, which no man has come close to achieving. He was however, not as dominant on the hard courts, never capturing an Australian Grand Slam.
American Andre Agassi was arguably the most popular male tennis player of all time, winning eight Grand Slam tournaments as well as an Olympic Gold Medal. He was instrumental in the US’s Davis Cup dominance, and was the maestro of the Master Series tournaments with more titles than any other man.
He has retired and is married to female tennis legend Steffi Graf. His work post tennis as been sensational, being involved in numerous charities and has raised over $100m for his foundations.
Pistol Pete Sampras is quite possibly the greatest player of all time, with a phenomenal 15-year career which won him 14 Grand Slam titles, still the most ever won by any man. He was world number one at year’s end for six consecutive years. He was overwhelmingly dominant as Wimbledon, winning the title seven times, as well as taking out his home slam in America five times.
And of course, Roger Federer, still currently playing and en-route to becoming the most dominant male player of all time. He has been the world number one since early 2004, and while the pack is definitely catching up to some degree, his dominance of the court has been at a level unseen by any other man in history. He has won 12 Grand Slam titles, and has been defeated by only a small collection of opponents. He is the four-timesWorld Sportsman of the Year. Between 2004 and 2006 he won well over 93 per cent of all his games played, a two-year domination unmatched by any other player in the world. Since being world number one, he has won335 games, and lost but 29. He has however, one glaring weakness, as does Pete Sampras - the surface of clay.
He has however, one glaring weakness, as does Pete Sampras - the surface of clay.
Federer has to contend with an overwhelmingly dominant clay-court specialist in Rafael Nadal, who holds a 19-1 record against the Swiss on the red surface.
Roger is and no doubt will be the best man ever to grace a court – but without conquering the clay and the Spaniard, he will not be able to claim complete dominance in men’s tennis.
Comments (8)
by joe willis on May 09, 2008
The is no such thing as a "Greatest Ever". Even if Roger wins the French this year or some other year, he will not be the greatest ever as there are too many variables to make such a ridiculous judgement. He is one of several great players in the history of the sport: leave it at that.
by K Tug on May 10, 2008
Nadal leads fed 7-1 on clay. i don't know where you found 19-1
by Doug Sedlak on May 10, 2008
No, Roger would have to change his game and risk losing his edge on hard court and grass in the process. For now Laver is the best ever.
by Dave Dash on May 12, 2008
Borg never won the Australian because he only played it once, in 1974. It was considered less than other non-major tournaments until the late 80s. I'm sure with it being on slow grass, Borg could have won it multiple times. Wait, you made another error...when Borg played, the Australian was on grass, and is thus is not an indicator of his problems on hardcourts. By the way, he did make four finals at the US Open, which is much better than say Sampras's one semifinal at the French. You need to do better research for your articles.
by A A on May 14, 2008
Not a bad article but spoilt by one badly phrased sentence...clay is not Federer's one glaring "weakness". Actually, Federer is a wonderful and natural clay court player. Nadal on clay is his one glaring "problem". Nadal is the best clay court player in history and Federer would have won 2-3 Roland Garros titles already if he had not lost to Nadal the past 3 years. But losses are losses and Federe must be meaured on his results, whoever his competition is - however you can not say that clay is a weakness for Federer.
by Questions on May 20, 2008
I agree with Joe Willis (the first person to comment on this article). There is no one greatest of all time... like all of us tennis followers I have read a number of articles on this subject arguing this way and that who was the Greatest of All Time. It truly is a ridiculous notion, seducive as it may be. There are sports where a very small number of competitors tower over the other truly excellent players, and tennis is one of them. And what Federer has achieved in the last 5 or 6 years puts him in that group. But no-one in that smallish group can be picked out as the one that exceeds the others... there are indeed too many variables. Along the same lines Nadal has achieved enough already between the ages of 18-21 to be placed in the small group of greatest claycourt players of all time. Greatest, plural. And for Federer to beat Nadal once at Roland Garros or never doing so truly does not change how excellent he has been - and perhaps will go back to being for a while - and whether he belongs among the greatest. Greatest, plural.
by Creative Eye on June 15, 2008
Way too many mistakes in the article. 1]Roger is not weak clay court player like Sampras was. 2]AO wasnt a hardcourt during mid 70's and hence Borg winning an AO would not have proved he is great on hard court. 3]Borg has reached US open final couple of times clearly says he is very good hard court player like he is on other courts as well. 4]Borg is a better all court player than Pete is. 5]If Pete should be considered as all timer great for his slams tally then Mats Wilander should be no.2 with 12 wins according to your argument which would be very silly. Pete is a great player but no ways the greatest in any case. Rod Laver who dominate his time and era by winning all 4 slams in the same year is the best ever.Many can argue that those slams werent on differnt surface but Rod can only achieve whats laid in front of him. Borg and Roger come next with dominant performance on all court. Andre come 4th in the list with perfect career slam winning all four. Pete was so dominant on 2 courts but only semifinal appearance as his best on clay GS cannot be said as the game's greatest.
by Adedapo Adewole on June 17, 2008
Its a little too early to talk about either Roger or Rafa being all time Greatest players. Roger is one of the all time greats but still has a few years to proove to the world that he is the greatest player ever. Rafa is a great Clay Court player, probably the greatest,...But not nearly the greatest all-round player!!! We should also be careful not to consider number of grandslams as the sole criterion. Other variables include the standard of tennis, Number of high profile payers. e.g. Federer would probably have won the Australian Open this year without the emergence of the Djoker, He would also have won the last 3 grandslams if not for Nadal. I also agree that federer's all-round game is probably the best ever. Time will tell!!!
Add your comment here
PERSONAL ABUSE WILL NOT BE TOLERATED
First Name
Last Name
Email
Heading
Display your favourite sport or football team badge with your comment.
Sport
League
Team
Comment *
Please enter the text you see in the picture into the textbox below. *
Dwight Howard ready to wave his Magic wand in the NBA
Self-destruction time as Lewis Hamilton and Felipe Massa pay Formula One penalty in Japan
Move over Sachin Tendulkar and Co - India's new sporting heroes are on the march
Arsenal Champions League Chelsea Cricket news Euroleague Fantasy football Football news Formula 1 Liverpool Manchester United NBA Newcastle United Premier League Sports news Tottenham Hotspur Transfer rumours Twenty20 UEFA UEFA Champions League
© SportBuzz All rights reserved 2008 Sportingo- Sports News & Sports Articles site. Sportingo delivers fresh sports news and analysis by fans-Football News, Tennis News, Rugby Union News