[Archived] French Open Tennis

[Eddie]

This victory doesn't make him the greatest of them all. It makes him the greatest modern player, but you can't possibly put him ahead of Rod Laver until he's shown himself to be capable of beating his rival (or rivals if some of the others make the step up) on the biggest stage.

[Rovermatt]

Whatever. You beat those in front of you and he's now won more grand slams in a far harsher, more ruthless environment than Laver ever faced.

[Eddie]

Laver was cut out of his prime by the ban, had that not happened he would have won far more than 15, a safe bet would be that he would be up around at least 20. The sheer number of titles that he won is astounding. I think it is simply impossible to say that Federer is the "greatest ever". This title probably ends the argument when it comes to the modern era and comparing him to Sampras, probably even Borg (although I still think those two played in stronger eras), but the Laver v Federer debate can't be settled simply by looking at number of titles, that is simplifying the issue to the extreme. I'm not sure how the era of first class travel, Hotel Crillon luxury suites and controlled diets is far harsher than the time Laver managed to achieve excellence at and the same time revolutionise the game (he was one of the first masters of the use of top spin). I've only seen archived footage of Laver, so I'm not exactly the best judge, but this 15th title doesn't settle it.

[Rovermatt]

Laver was cut out of his prime by the ban, had that not happened he would have won far more than 15, a safe bet would be that he would be up around at least 20. The sheer number of titles that he won is astounding. I think it is simply impossible to say that Federer is the "greatest ever". This title probably ends the argument when it comes to the modern era and comparing him to Sampras, probably even Borg (although I still think those two played in stronger eras), but the Laver v Federer debate can't be settled simply by looking at number of titles, that is simplifying the issue to the extreme. I'm not sure how the era of first class travel, Hotel Crillon luxury suites and controlled diets is far harsher than the time Laver managed to achieve excellence at and the same time revolutionise the game (he was one of the first masters of the use of top spin). I've only seen archived footage of Laver, so I'm not exactly the best judge, but this 15th title doesn't settle it.

So Laver is the greatest based on the titles that he didn't win but for a ban? As you say, you've only seen archive footage. If Laver deems Federer to be the best, then I'm happy to take his word for it.

[Eddie]

No, I actually agree with how Laver looked at it. It's impossible to truly compares the eras, so the best way to look at it is by judging the best of each decade or generation. Federer is a fantastically complete player, but he has benefitted from playing in a relatively weak era. The best way of doing it is simply saying that Federer is the best in "modern" times, certainly of this century so far and will get the dominant tag for this decade. Sampras gets the 90's...and so on.

[neekoy]

Tim Henman: ``I don't think there's anyone that hits the ball like that. Sure, if you take Roddick's serve and (Andre) Agassi's returns and my volleysand (Lleyton) Hewitt's speed and tenacity, then you've probably got a good chance against Federer.''

Hahahaha! Although the rest I would agree with

[Rovermatt]

No, I actually agree with how Laver looked at it. It's impossible to truly compares the eras, so the best way to look at it is by judging the best of each decade or generation. Federer is a fantastically complete player, but he has benefitted from playing in a relatively weak era. The best way of doing it is simply saying that Federer is the best in "modern" times, certainly of this century so far and will get the dominant tag for this decade. Sampras gets the 90's...and so on.

Who says he's been playing in a weak era? He has to contend with Nadal for goodness sake.

[Eddie]

Nadal as only emerged fairly recently, particularly as a threat on multiple surfaces.

[T4E]

This victory doesn't make him the greatest of them all. It makes him the greatest modern player, but you can't possibly put him ahead of Rod Laver until he's shown himself to be capable of beating his rival (or rivals if some of the others make the step up) on the biggest stage.

He's beaten Nadal in the final of Wimbledon twice.

Nadal has had his number at Roland Garros, and beat him once in Aus.

A Federer-Nadal US Open final would go a long way towards answering who is better at this moment in time.

[Hughesy]

Id say that would be unfair as Nadal has been injured so will be short of championship experience.

Hopefully both stay fit until the next Wimbledon and Murray/ Roddick continue to improve - then it could really hot up.

[T4E]

Id say that would be unfair as Nadal has been injured so will be short of championship experience.

US Open is still quite some time off, Rafa has plenty of time to get himself sorted.

It does make me laugh how Federer losing to Rafa in the final of the French so many times seems to have damaged his legacy in some peoples eyes. Rafa is a clay court player who has slowly developed his game on other surfaces. Federer can play on every surface. Rafa's record over Fed looks so good because Federer has managed to make many many clay court finals over the years, despite it being his weakest surface. Rafa however hasn't managed to be as consistent on grass/hard courts over the same period of time, therefore Federer hasn't had the chance to beat him in as many slam finals. Instead he's gone about his business beating the players that have been good enough to make it.

[Eddie]

It hasn't damaged his legacy really, but it doesn't help when you've only really had one rival during your entire career. Maybe one of Murray, Djokovic or any of the other younger players will make that step up, but until they do it makes judging Federer's career that bit harder. He's clearly head and shoulders above the vast majority of pros to have ever played the game, but there's no denying the fact that the early 2000's were a very poor time for tennis.

With Nadal's injury problems he could be in big trouble. You don't see many tennis players come back from problems with hips or knees, Haas being a rare exception.

[American]

Conversely, it could be the Tiger Woods syndrome, where all potential rivals were just psychologically beaten and never stood a chance at reaching their potential. The fact that no one has gotten close shows how great he is. 5 years straight never having missed a semi of a major. Amazing.

[Eddie]

The 21 semis is more impressive than the 15 wins for me. I'm not a believer in what you dubbed the "Tiger Woods Syndrome", if any rivals really were great they would have risen to the challenge on a more regular basis.

[neekoy]

Whilst everyone is occupied with Nadal's injury, we have to also remember that Federer has been recovering from Glandular Fever over the last 2 years.

[benhben]

Whilst everyone is occupied with Nadal's injury, we have to also remember that Federer has been recovering from Glandular Fever over the last 2 years.

ive had glandular fever and its horrible! Doesnt take 2 years to recover from though.

Roger Federer now regained his world No 1 spot. Looks much more confident since winning in France.

[Perth_Rover]

This being reported over here.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...7-11088,00.html

Not too many details atm, but a shame for someone young to be found dead

[neekoy]

ive had glandular fever and its horrible! Doesnt take 2 years to recover from though.

Roger Federer now regained his world No 1 spot. Looks much more confident since winning in France.

Sorry, I should have more concise. He strated 2008 wiht Glandular fever, which my understanding then led to sever fatigue, during which time he suffered in form and lost his number one.

It appears from the start of this year that he is certinaly healthier, in form and dominating.