Let the debate continue.
Now that Roger Federer has won his 14th Grand Slam title, after beating Robin Soderling on Sunday in the French Open final, the discussion over the greatest men’s tennis player of all-time is beginning to peak.
Until recently, Pete Sampras, who also has 14 Slams, was regarded as the best there ever was.
Things have changed.
Federer is The Man.
Not only does he have those 14 Grand Slams, he has a career Grand Slam (winning each major at least once), something Sampras can’t claim. And Federer has the more complete game. Not to downplay Sampras’ game, but in his prime, he couldn’t do all the things Federer does on the court.
Sampras’ biggest weapon was his serve — both the speed and locations. What’s Federer’s strength? Sure, you could say it’s his forehand, but is his forehand that much better than his backhand, serves or volleys?
The guy doesn’t have a weakness.
And he beat Sampras in their only ATP meeting, in 2001 at Wimbledon, when Sampras was the four-time defending champion and Federer was two years away from his first Grand Slam title.
Obviously that isn’t much of a barometer of who is the better all-time player. The most common gage is Grand Slams. Each of them has 14.
But Federer’s not done. Not long after it was thought that he was done at 13, he reminded everyone that he’s still pretty damn good.
He’ll get to 15, and maybe 16 or 17. The Federer-Sampras debate won’t end there, but it’ll give Fed Heads like me more ammunition.
3 comments:
Once again, and not surprisingly, we disagree. Firstly, the competition today is weak. The top five in the world go like this: Nadal, Federer, Murray, Djokovic and Juan Martin del Potro. Big names like Gilles Simon and Fernando Verdasco are also in the top 10.
Not exactly a gauntlet, considering Sampras routinely had to play against Andre Agassi (an eight-time Grand Slam champion) and Jim Courier (who has four Slams). He was a dominant player during a dominant time for tennis.
Secondly, Federer never had to beat the best to get his first French Open title. I don't hold that against him; he was just playing the person in front of him. But Robin Soderling's upset win over Nadal paved the way for this win.
Only time will tell how many Slams Federer will end with (I say maybe one or two more), but right now, Sampras gets the nod when it comes to all-time greats.
Perhaps the competition was stronger in Sampras' day, but to call the current crop of players "weak" is quite the exaggeration. It's not as if Federer is playing you or me in these Grand Slam finals.
And yes, Rafael Nadal losing to Soderling in the fourth round, made Federer's path to the title much easier. But Federer beat Nadal on clay a week before the French Open in Madrid. No one thought he could beat Nadal on clay. And he did. Not in the French, but it's not Federer's fault Nadal couldn't hold up his end of the bargain.
Really, though, all this Federer vs. Sampras talk could be moot. Having never seen him play (except the last few years in exhibition doubles matches at the Hall of Fame), I can't offer too much insight on Rod Laver's career and where it ranks among the all-time greats. But he certainly should be in the conversation.
Yeah, that I agree with. It's easy to decide between a player we're watching now and a player we grew up watching. But we have no idea just how good Laver was during his era ... I can only assume dominant.
Post a Comment