Does Federer have to win the French to be the greatest?

Question

I say he does,otherwise he gets lumped in with a list of other great players that came up short.
discuss

Answer 1

Fed doesn't have to win the French to be considered the greatest. The greatest players of the past, Laver, Borg, McEnroe, Agassi, all have amazing things to say about him and already declare him the greatest (and they all know the egomaniac pete).

BUT, it's a challenge and he loves a challenge. He loves to conquer and any good athlete loves to compete.

And, he would FINALLY silence all the strange people who compare him to pete samprass. Actually only americans compare him to pete, the rest of the world easily sees their style is totally different.

He already beat most records and even set some new records of his own.

I love Rogi, obviously.

ps- I think Agassi is definitely one of the greatest, because in the modern era, who else won all 4 grand slams? Not many.

Answer 2

Winning the French will strengthen his claim. I agree with some of the other comments here that say that the greatest ever is always going to be disputed.

I think in general the only "title" that can be bestowed upon an athlete is the "greatest of his generation". How do you compare Laver's grand slams with McEnroe winning percentage or Sampras' number of slams (although I'm pretty sure Federer will surpass that number). Even comparing Nadal and Federer is impossible. Can Federer be considered to be definitely "greater" than Nadal if Nadal managed to have the longest ever winning streak on clay during Federer's years of domination?

Answer 3

No. Look at what he has done the past 5 years. If he continues at the very least to win one grand slam per year for over a decade then that dominance will only confirm that he is the greatest player of all time.

Not winning the French Open would be merely a letdown personally for him and should not diminish his dominance and consistency. Its not like he cannot play on clay, look at his record at Hamburg and Monte Carlo.

When he retires he will have won the most grand slams and the most Masters series events and he will set records that will not be broken. This will clearly make him the greatest player of all time, regardless of whether he wins at Roland Garros or not.

Answer 4

He does if for no other reason than winning all 4 slams has been done by others and it's hard to separate oneself from other greats unless you can match or exceed them in the meaningful categories. No player will ever be the unanimous pick for GOAT, but Fed's supporters would then have a legitimate answer for any objective argument. Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan answered their critics questions(and you'll still hear a few people tout a couple of others)so Federer should, also.

Answer 5

Well, put it this way: If Federer wins 20 grand slams and no French Open - he will still be the greatest ever, period. The French Open win will just expedite the status of G.O.A.T. Honestly, has anyone seen a better player who has picked up a tennis racket.
I'm not going to go into all the records that he's achieved, but remember one thing: 10 straight grand slam finals and counting & 14 straight grand slam semi finals - and counting.

Tell me one who has come close to this? Sampras has three straight grand slam finals and three grand slam semi finals and Laver has four straight grand slam finals and four grand slam semi finals. If this consistency does not make him the G.O.A.T., what will?

By the way, he's stated, barring no injury, he will play at least until he is 35, and definitely he will be at 2012 olympics. So sky is the limit for another five to nine years. He only started winning in 2003 and in four years time, he is talked about as the greatest ever. This tells you everything!

Answer 6

To be undisputedly the greatest of all time, yes, he does. Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of him. But how can I say he is better than people like Connors, McEnroe and Tilden when I've never seen them in action before? The only thing that can convince me that is statistics and individual achievement. Which is why he has to win all Majors to be considered the best by everyone.

If not, many people will still say he is the greatest. But some will not, saying things like "He has not played Connors or Sampras in their prime, so how do you know?", "Back during the days, they only use wooden rackets, so how can you make such comparisons?", "Yes, he is good, but he has a losing record against Nadal".

Answer 7

well like everyone else has said i think ultimately he does have to win the french, this way nobody has any negative aurtillary to use agains't him... however, i am in the opinion that you have to look at someones individual win lose record.... how many events they have won and there peformances.. that also says alot.. but Federer winning the french is like justine henin having to win wimbledon... both are 2 of the best tennis players of today, but both are eluded from one particular slam.. do i think They will win it? Yes and no, sometimes you want something so bad it just simply escapes you, like in particular with what happened with Justine henin at the wimbledon semifinal agains't MARION BARTOLI.. it did not make any sense for her to lose, but credit to Bartoli, but i also believe HENIN mentally collapsed.

Answer 8

Not really, the amount of grandslams he would of won, by the time he has finished his career, and the fact that he has been in 2/3 F.O finals already. He will probably get to another 2/3, baring injury, i think due to age, probably his next 2 trips to the final are his best chance to win it.

I think he is banging on the door of "the greatest" already.

Answer 9

Well the way I see it, he already is the G.O.A.T. But of course there are critics who won't admit to it. So if Federer wants to silence his critics and leave nobody doubting his place amongst the all time greats, then yes, he does need to win the French(and improve his head-to-head record against Nadal). I mean look at Sampras: he is widely considered the best but others say it's Laver all because Sampras never won the French Open.

Answer 10

According to the tennis historians and press yes, he's going to need to be able to the French title in addition to trying to beat Sampras' record to be consider the Greatest of all Time.

In my opinion though he's already the greatest of all time.