Roger Federer survived some rain, an idiot fan on the court and Sweden’s Robin Soderling to win the French Open in straight sets and become only the sixth men’s player to win all four Grand Slam titles in a career. The debate has been renewed as to whether Federer is the Greatest Of All Time.
There will be no asterisk behind Federer’s first French Open title, which ties him with Pete Sampras as the only two men to win 14 career majors. Federer’s nemesis Rafael Nadal was not facing him in the final, but that was because Nadal was beaten earlier by Soderling. So while Federer caught a break in avoiding Nadal, he easily dispatched the player who dumped Nadal. Now the debate has shifted to the GOAT and whether Federer can claim that crown. Sampras says yes.
“Now that he’s won in Paris, I think it just more solidifies his place in history as the greatest player that played the game, in my opinion,” Sampras said. “I’m a huge [Rod] Laver fan, and he had a few years in there where he didn’t have an opportunity to win majors. But you can’t compare the eras. And in this era, the competition is much more fierce than Rod’s.”
I say there’s no way to ever determine the greatest when one is talking about athletes from different eras. Laver won two Grand Slams and 11 majors and was barred (due to archaic rules) from playing in these majors for five years at the height of his abilities.
One also must consider different equipment and the skill levels of contemporaries when making such equations. How would a Federer have fared against a Jimmy Connors or Bjorn Borg in their prime, or a Laver on clay against Nadal? These are nice fan discussions to have, but ultimately unanswerable.
As for the brief ruckus, a fan carrying a Barcelona soccer banner ran onto the court (photos here) and tried to place a red hat on Federer. He was eventually tackled by security and hauled away. Fortunately, his intrusion did not affect the match.
My question: Is Federer the GOAT? If not, why not?
on Jun 7th, 2009 at 6:19 PM
Short unsubtle answer, yes.
The longer answer (too long for here): yes, but there’s a lot of history involved.
Equivocal answer: Federer is the best of the Open Era, Laver is the best of the pre-Open Era.
on Jun 7th, 2009 at 6:26 PM
I’m not so sure. If Nadal has had Roger’s number on clay, can you really count his French Open win a REAL win if he doesn’t beat the ONE man he never could beat on clay? And also, isn’t there some possibility that Nadal’s knees might have been the culprit? It’s looking likely that he has injured them. That should be taken into consideration.
on Jun 7th, 2009 at 7:45 PM
MJ…it is not Federer’s issue that Nadal got beat in the round of 16 and Federer beat all 7 opponents in his draw. It is not Federer’s issue that Nadal has ongoing knee troubles. And Federer HAS beaten Nadal on clay, just not at the French Open. He just beat Nadal on clay before the tournament.
on Jun 7th, 2009 at 9:26 PM
If history stopped today, then Federer would have a leg up on Sampras via his French Open successes. Four finals and a title trumps Sampras’ one SF.
However, Federer is the only player in the Open Era to win 3 slams a year for 3 years, and make it to all 4 finals several years. He has 20 consecutive Semis.
Can anyone imaging Federer retiring with this as his last slam? He will be favored at Wimbledon, especially if Nadal’s knee keeps him out. He is the 5-time defending Champion in NY, meaning that he has a good chance at one, if not both, of the last 2 majors this year. At age 27, he probably has 3-5 years left of competitive tennis, so 4 more slams for 18 is not out of the question.
If Federer retired today, he would be considered the best by an edge. If he keeps winning Slams, then it will be an open-shut case.
on Jun 8th, 2009 at 1:26 AM
“I’m not so sure. If Nadal has had Roger’s number on clay, can you really count his French Open win a REAL win if he doesn’t beat the ONE man he never could beat on clay?”
Of course, it was a legit win. Nadal was in the tournament and lost, and Federer whipped the guy who beat him. This argument would only have merit had Nadal skipped the French, which he did not.
on Jun 8th, 2009 at 6:30 AM
Federer has the most impressive major tournament record ever. 14 titles and 20 semis in a row is mind blowing. My initial reaction is Yes he is definitely the greatest of all time.
But when you consider his head-to-head record against Nadal it’s hard to make the GOAT claim for Federer. He’s 7-13 versus Nadal with 16 of those matches in tournament finals. How can he be annointed GOAT when he has a losing a record against a player in his own era.
FYI – Nadal has beaten Federer in the last three major finals in which they have met; 2008 French, 2008 Wimbledon, 2009 Australian.
on Jun 8th, 2009 at 4:48 PM
Mike, thank you for supporting my point. Soderling basically collapsed in the final. He wasn’t equal to the occasion since it was his first time. But he DID beat both Djok and Nadal, 3 and 1 on his way there. Fed didn’t have to meet either 3 or 1 ranked players. Don’t get me wrong, Fed is an incredible tennis player, but he does have a losing record against Nadal and arguably Fed is one of the top 3 players of all time. But he can’t seem to beat Nadal in this past 1-1/2 year. What does that say?
on Jun 8th, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Except that he beat Nadal the last time they played. On clay. In Spain. Last month.
Also, something to think about. If you take away all the clay matches, Federer has a winning record against Nadal.
on Jun 8th, 2009 at 6:05 PM
Sorry but even if Nafal had skipped the French, Fed’s win would have been perfectly legit. Barring something like Monica’s stabbing, just being ready to play in a major is a key component of a player’s legacy. True some players are more injury prone, but some are also shorter, slower, dumber, less agile.
Sampras never had a Nadal. His Roland Garros losses were to Gilbert Schaller, Magnus Norman, Ramon Delgado, Galo Blanco and Andrea Gaudenzi, among others. He only ever beat one top 10 player at the French (Courier in ’96) only to suffer a beat down in the semis to Kafelnikov (who himself was no Nadal, reaching the French semis only twice). Pete never faced Guga on clay, partly because he was reduced to a joke on the surface once Kuerten began his ascendance.
Finally, over the past 4 years, nadal has won 5 majors to Roger’s 10 and has appeared in 7 major finals to Roger’s 14. Yes, Nadal is 5-2 against Roger in major finals over that period but he’s much worse against the rest of the field over that period. Sampras had losing records against Richard Krajicek and Sergei Bruguera. So what?
on Jun 8th, 2009 at 10:08 PM
No MJ…Djokovic was on Federer’s half of the draw. Djokovic was beaten by Philip Kohlschreiber, not Soderling. Neither Rafa, Djokovic, or Murray had the stuff to make it through 6 matches to face Roger in the final. I think its also important to remember that the conditions for Sunday’s final were a lot different than earlier in the tournament. Conditions were much heavier and Soderling was not able to hit Roger off the court. Regardless though…Federer’s record of always being there at the end or very close to it makes his win VERY legit. Its not as if he loses early year after year at the French. This was his 4th straight final. Rafa wasn’t up to joining him and at least Federer beat the guy who beat the best on clay.
on Jun 9th, 2009 at 12:05 AM
I suppose we can then just ignore the other French finals that Nadal beat Fed, not to mention Fed’s total collapse at the French last year.
on Jun 9th, 2009 at 2:02 AM
You seem to be missing the point MJ. The question was whether Federer was the greatest all time…not can he beat Nadal at the French Open. I think Federer’s record shows that he is right now yes the greatest. Could Nadal eventually surpass him….maybe. But I also think Nadal’s record clearly has him as the greatest clay court player ever. It is a telling that one of the reasons why Nadal has such a great record against Federer is that most of their matches have been on clay. It is also telling that the only person to beat Nadal in a final on clay is Federer and he has done it twice on what most would consider his weakest surface.
on Jun 9th, 2009 at 1:14 PM
True, I may be somewhat biased in favor of Nadal. But what people seem to be missing is Nadal is the one player Fed can’t beat at the French Open. I would certainly agree that Fed’s overall success put’s him above Sampras especially since he has had success on all surfaces. But notice the only way he can win the French is when he doesn’t come up against Nadal. To be the absolute best, ever, can you claim it if there is one player who seems to dominate you? Don’t forget that Nadal beat Fed last year at Wimbledon. Give him another year, and no knee troubles, and I bet he’ll beat him at US Open as well.
on Jun 9th, 2009 at 1:30 PM
MJ:
Using your logic, the Steelers’ Super Bowl win was tainted because they did not have to beat the Patriots in the playoffs. And we know the Patriots have owned the Steelers in the playoffs winning 2 AFC titles on the road in Pittsburgh. Or if the Lakers win the NBA, it won’t count as much because they didn’t have to beat the Celtics to do it.
A win is a win and Federer won in a tournament that featured Nadal. And Nadal lost to the guy that Federer smoked in straight sets.
on Jun 9th, 2009 at 2:53 PM
If you can’t beat your main nemesis, I don’t honestly believe that it counts as much. If there is one person, or team, that you just can’t beat, can you really claim yourself or your team as the best? I don’t think so. It doesn’t matter who beat whom on the way to the final. If you can’t beat your main nemesis, it seems difficult to claim yourself as the best.
on Jun 9th, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Sorry MJ but that’s specious reasoning. Sampras didn’t beat Agassi to win all of his titles. Federer can’t help it if Nadal didn’t hold up his end of the bargain. And would Nadal’s Wimbledon accomplishment be lessened if Federer had lost in the semis? No.
on Jun 9th, 2009 at 4:25 PM
Fed is definitely the best of all time. When people bring up Laver they forget that when he played it was only on two surfaces instead of 3. (4 if you count the rebounaise at the Australian). The announcers are quick to point that out as well when they say that (before Sunday) Agassi was the only man to win on all surfaces of today.
As far as Nadal is concerned, as someone pointed out earlier, Fed had beaten him in a final just before the French. Even if he never won the french, no player has been as dominate on all surfaces as Fed. (Remember, he has made 4 straight French finals and a semi before that one.)
When Macenroe, Sampras, Agassi, Laver, many more commentators, and just about every player currently on the tour (even Nadal) say that Fed is the best, that carries a lot of weight with me.
on Jan 24th, 2010 at 7:24 PM
The greatness of any player of any sport does not depend on only ONE of his opponents…It is an overall performance..Federer is the most well-balanced among the rest : mentally, physically and technically..and that truly makes him the GOAT. STATS DON’T LIE. IF EXPRERIENCED PLAYERS ( Sampras, Laver, etc.) and longtime sports analyts point to Roger as the GOAT ….then the debate is over…
on Feb 9th, 2010 at 8:17 AM
This article was written after last year’s French, upon Fed completing his “career slam”, since then he has won two additional majors and lost in the finals of another.
I agree with Eunice above in that Fed is so well balanced in aspects of the game. His fitness is perhaps the most underrated facet of his game. The way he moves about the court is in stark contrast to the violent phyisicality of Nadal, which has contributed to his injury problems.