people say fed needs to win the french, but since he has atleast 3 titles in the other 3 slams, does he need to win atleast 3 french titles? or is just 1 enough for u? i mean this federer is winning everything right now, nadal pushed him for a while but even nadal is getting drilled now. if it wasnt for nadal and nalbandian, federer would have won everything! i think fed will win the french next year, seems like he is coming to the net more often, he did that when he won the set off rafa in the french final. i really do think fed will do the calendar year grand slam + the olympic singles gold medal. if that happens fed will hav basically done everything. just need to get about 8 wimbledons, 8 US opens, 7 Aussie opens, and 4 french titles! and about 7 tennis masters cups. and if he can 3 calendar year grand slams. if that happens fed will be the best tennis player ever, male or female! interesting times in tennis!
2007-11-18 20:21:11 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Tennis
Sampras - no good on clay
Borg - never won the U.S., less than Sampras
Agassi - not enough slams
In my opinion Federer is already better than Sampras, who is revered as the greatest. Federer has more Masters Series, better consistency and two French Open finals. If Fed overtook the Sampras record of slams, what argument would there be for him not being the GOAT? One French win would give him one more than Sampras, so why does he need 3 to be the greatest?
2007-11-19 06:09:49 · answer #1 · answered by second only to trollalalala 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think he'd be the greatest ever. He's definitely the greatest player of his generation. Winning French Open would confirm that. Overall though, no player can be the greatest ever, mainly because they've never played each other. Plus, I agree with the arguments that circumstances were different, rackets were different, etc. All of the past greats were great at something. McEnroe had the best winning percentage, Borg was able to have 11 grand slam titles between just French Open and Wimbledon and played Australian Open only once, Sampras was the first #1 to finish 6 years in a row as #1, and how do you compare Federer's domination to the "Iron Ivan" era?
As for winning a grand slam take a look at the discussions about the greatest female tennis player ever. Graf, the winner of a golden slam, isn't exactly an overwhelming favorite. Same thing will happen to Federer. He will be called the greatest ever for a while, until a new young talent arrives and then Federer will be called one of the greatest (but not "the" greatest) regardless of the number of titles with which he'll finish.
2007-11-19 04:57:50 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No and this is why: 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!
2007-11-19 03:50:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Based on what I've heard some in the media say he would need to win the French Open once to be in the category of Greatest of All Time.
It will be interesting to see how Nadal does next year because when the French comes around again he will be trying to go for 4 French Open titles in a row.
I would love to see Roger be able to win the calendar year Grand Slam some day as some others before him have done.
2007-11-18 20:39:35 · answer #4 · answered by sokokl 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think just one French Open would be enough. That would satisfy those who think that a player must have all four Grand Slams to be part of the "best ever" discussion. However, I suspect that even many purists already think Federer is the best, but need him to get a French title so that they can "officially" declare it. I already think he is the best--He was absolutely brilliant in the Masters Cup Final.
Martina Navratilova was asked about this and she said that she believes he could still be considered the best ever even if he never wins the French. Coming from someone who has won all four Slams herself, I think that says a lot.
I believe the lack of a French title is what keeps many from considering Sampras the best, but in my opinion the difference between Sampras and Federer in this regard is that Sampras never even got to a final. His best result was the semifinals in 1996. Federer, however has been in two finals and is a great clay court player. Nadal is the only one who consistently beats him on this surface.
2007-11-19 04:04:36 · answer #5 · answered by michelle j 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope, not 3. He only needs to win 1 French Open in order to be the GREATEST ever male player in the history of tennis!
Before I struggled to understand why Roger couldn't win the French Open when he so clearly is probably the best ever male player to date in the game of tennis. Then I finally understood why - it's just the Rafael Nadal is just the best clay courter ever. He's just simply too good on clay, and the Federer critically wasn't using enough offensive tactics from the baseline on the clay court against Nadal. Though as the other guy here mentioned Roger was coming forward to the net more often, which helped him win a set against Nadal in the 2007 French Open final. Did you remember that Federer did beat Nadal in the final (if that's the right round) in the last clay-court tournament just before the French Open!!!? Though, to be serious, Nadal didn't get enough practice due to having an injury before then, but man, that was something for Federer, & remember that Nadal did went all the way to that final, despite having little practice!
OK, so, hopefully, & I really wish for Federer to finally win the French Open & totally whoop Nadal on his *** & his smugness off his face! Of course, he isn't really that smug, but man, can he just stop winning on the clay? He's gotta be imperfect on it, or something, but of course Federer will have to use effective tactics to win against Nadal, lol.
I really shudder at the day when Federer may surpass Steffi Graf's, lol, a female player, record of 22 Grand Slam wins!
I'm not saying that Federer is perfect, including on the hardcourts, & grass courts. I know of my favourite kind of tactic that would just definitely stretch Federer to his limits, that is if I practise lots, have good fitness, & endurance (under the hot sun) & have good power, too. By the way, I ain't a professional player, mind you.
2007-11-18 22:19:18 · answer #6 · answered by ObiKKa 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't agree with those here that say that Federer doesn't need to win the French, I think that he does. But I agree with those that think he only needs to win once. He has already been to 2 finals, and came close to winning both of those. As long as he wins more slams than Sampras, and wins the French, then he will be considered the greatest. Otherwise he won't have anything over either Agassi or Rod Laver, who have won them all. You have to win them all, and win more than anyone else has, to be considered the greatest. Tiger Woods will be considered the greatest golfer of all time once he passes Nicklaus in total slams since he has already won them all.
2007-11-19 12:25:32 · answer #7 · answered by M C 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i dont think he has to win it at all in order to be th ebest of all-time. Tennis played today isnt anything what it was in the 60s, 70s, or even 80s. it's is so much faster and so much specialized. 3 of the 4 slams were on grass and the technology was wood rackets.
now, if Federer WAS to win the French Open, that would just solidfy his place in tennis history and destroy most arguments against him being the greatest of all time.
2007-11-19 05:57:17 · answer #8 · answered by mfunke76 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're saying that IF Federer wins 8 Ws, 8 USOs, 7 AOs and 4 FOs, THEN he'll be the greatest of all time?
That's setting an unfairly high standard isn't it? According to this logic, then no one qualifies to be the greatest of all time.
2007-11-19 01:21:33 · answer #9 · answered by Dr D 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hmm... well he's come very close.. did you see the final of 2006? I just think Rafa is just so unbeatable on clay. he's insane on that surface. but sure, if he gets injured or his body is worn down from the way he plays his tennis. And don't forget the Hamburg Final 2k7 Roger won...and Monte Carlo and Hamburg this year 2008 Roger ALMOST won. As for Australian Open and U.S. Open...Nadal just isn't good on those surfaces. Sorry.
2016-05-24 04:06:09 · answer #10 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋