Is Federer the greatest tennis player of all time?

[yoda]

Frederer needs to beat Nadal in French Open to be considered as greatest.

What? French open is the worst of all surfaces. Sampras for example has never won there, neither has Edberg, Becker, McEnroe and several other greats. Federer has won the french which is enough. On the contrary Nadal needs to win more consistently outside the french.

[99.94]

What? French open is the worst of all surfaces. Sampras for example has never won there, neither has Edberg, Becker, McEnroe and several other greats. Federer has won the french which is enough. On the contrary Nadal needs to win more consistently outside the french.

How is it the worst of all surfaces? It is just as important as an others, just because a lot of good players never won there. If anything Grass is less important, how many tournaments are played on grass every year? Not too many at all. It takes a lot to win on every surface, something Nadal did much earlier than Federer.

[Cricketics]

How is it the worst of all surfaces? It is just as important as an others' date=' just because a lot of good players never won there. If anything Grass is less important, how many tournaments are played on grass every year? Not too many at all. It takes a lot to win on every surface, something Nadal did much earlier than Federer.[/quote'] and he fails to win consistently. The guy named Federer has won now every tournament. He has defeated every player who has defeated every player in his current era who has done well in tennis. It took ages for someone to conquer US Open after Federer's long run. Keeps winning those grandslams. After losing one wimbledon, he has continously won good amount of grand slams. Hence he has most no. of Slams in todays world. Hence he is the best. The best ever - Roger Federer

[yoda]

How is it the worst of all surfaces? It is just as important as an others' date=' just because a lot of good players never won there. If anything Grass is less important, how many tournaments are played on grass every year? Not too many at all. It takes a lot to win on every surface, something Nadal did much earlier than Federer.[/quote'] You have just to see the Tennis to see how boring the matches on clay are. Any Surface where McEnroe, Edberg, Sampras, Becker didn't win but Michael Chang won should be wiped out. It is more a test of endurance than tennis skills. Federer has won on ALL surfaces btw. He has won a gazillion on the hard courts of the US open and on grass. Nadal at this stage has done practically very little outside of the French. He was getting better with his outstanding Wimbledon last year has but has been out injured since. Till he gets to winning a few US opens and continues to shine in majors in general, he won't be close to someone like Agassi, let alone a Sampras and then Federer.

[punjabi_khota]

No! Not the best. The best at beating complete chumps maybe. Put him up against anyone of reasonable quality (Murray' date=' Nadal) and he is found out.[/quote'] So everyone apart from Murray and Nadal is a chump ? :hysterical::hysterical: What kind of retarded logic is that ?

[99.94]

Meh whatever, call him the greatest. I don't think I'll ever consider him the best.

[Sooda]

Kraijceck had a winning record versus Samp- dosent make him a great player (he was a very good one though) nor does it make Samp less than great The same way losing to Rafa or Murray dosent lessen The Feds achievements. I still mattain itll be good if he beats rafa in a GS final, not necesarily the French O. That way he has beaten his great rival when it matters in a big tourno. He is the best ever though really. French Open win cements that.