Does the French Open victory make Roger Federer the greatest tennis player of all time ? • 06.09.09
A lot of people seem to think so, including Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras.
But if being the winner of the maximum number of grand slam titles was the criterion of all time greatness, then Margret Court Smith should be the greatest women’s player of all time. And we all know that she is not even guaranteed a position in the top five.
If being the winner of the maximum number of grand slam titles coupled with the distinction of having completed a career grand slam puts Federer above the likes of Sampras and Laver, then why wasn’t Roy Emerson anointed as the greatest player of all time when he held the same distinction; he happened to complete the career grand slam twice and held the distinction of having won the maximum number of titles for a long time.
Federer’s case is also weakened by the standard of competition in his era. His only contemporary who will qualify as an all time great is Rafael Nadal. The likes of Sampras, Laver and Borg had to compete against a larger group of well accomplished adversaries.
And the clincher against Federer is his haplessness against Rafael Nadal. No other claimant to the title of ‘greatest player of all time’ has been subject to such humiliation at the hands of a fellow player as has Federer against Nadal. Sampras and Laver had positive records against all their peers.
This fallibility becomes all the more important in judging Roger’s greatness because Nadal is the only great player whose career overlaps significantly with that of Federer.
The title of best men’s tennis player of all time is still open to debate. Roger has a strong case but his imperfections are significant enough to delay his coronation.
