CNN TV SCHEDULE ANCHORS REPORTERS CONTACT US

June 8, 2009
Posted: 1431 GMT

Filed under: I •I-Desk Poll


Share this on:
Md. Aseer Jubair Khan Majlish.   June 8th, 2009 4:18 pm ET

No, I don’t think that Federer is the all time greatest tennis player. Because of the words all time. Because anyone can be said greatest of his or her time. But In case of all time you have to compare him with the players of other time greats like Bion Borg, Pitt Sampras, Andre Agassi, Ivan Lendle, Boris Baker and others. Again you don’t know in future a far better player may come. I think Fererer is a great player and probably he is the greatest of his time.

Kathleen Mellor   June 8th, 2009 5:15 pm ET

I think Rod Laver probably got it right when he said you can call him the most dominant player of his time, but not the greatest ever. I personally don't think he is the greatest ever . Can you be the greatest ever when you have such lopsided head to head results, with your nearest opponents?
Nadal vs Federer 13-7, Murray vs Federer 6-2.

naana   June 8th, 2009 5:29 pm ET

Tennis is about a lot more than just finesse which roger undoubtedly has,it is first and foremost a sport and therefore must be heart stoppingly exciting to make it worth watching. Roger hasn't brought that to the game in a long time.this yrs french open final was very disappointingly as there was none of the excitement that others brings to the game which has in the last few years elevated the sport. I suppose my point is how can roger be the best player of all time,despite his win at the french,if there is another player who brings more excitement to the game than he does.tennis is about nerve in the end,and as long as roger hasn't that nerve when he plays Rafa,young as Rafa is he is in my opinion the best tennis player ever.unless the "best" is intended for the no of slams you win. people r so determined to make hand roger this accolade and believe that with what he does off court he "deserves it "

naana   June 8th, 2009 5:35 pm ET

Halle,tennis is about a lot more than just finesse which roger undoubtedly has,it is first and foremost a sport and therefore must be heart stoppingly exciting to make it worth watching.Roger hasn't brought that to the game in a long time.this yrs french open final was very disappointingly as there was non of the excitement that others brings to the game which has in the last few years elevated the sport.i suppose my point is how can roger be the best player of all time,despite his win at the french,if there is another player who brings more excitement to the game than he does.tennis is about nerve in the end,and as long as roger hasn't that nerve when he plays Rafa,young as Rafa is he is in my opinion the best tennis player ever.unless the "best" is intended for the no of slams you win. people r so determined to hand roger this accolade and believe that with what he does off court he "deserves it "

Flaubert   June 8th, 2009 6:00 pm ET

I think Federer is definitly the best player ever, not only because of all what he won, but also because of its style, the way he play is wonderful and very elegant.He is a working hard person especially when he has a lot of pression.

Flaubert

southes   June 8th, 2009 6:09 pm ET

No, I don’t think that Federer is the all time greatest tennis player.Nadal vs Federer 13-7, Murray vs Federer 6-2.

PAT   June 8th, 2009 6:52 pm ET

Fed beat Soderling to win his first AND UNIQUE Roland Garros.
While Rafa beat Fed to win: RG (on three occasions), Wimbledon and Australian Open.

So, if the ARROGANT Fed is the GOAT, what about Rafael Nadal Parera?

Nadal vs. Fed 13-7

Wake up people!!!

VAMOS RAFA!!!

julio marchena   June 8th, 2009 7:07 pm ET

of course he is:
14 grand slam titles in only six years,
and just look at his career so far :

Roger Federer
Longest winning streak on hard courts: 56 (2005-06)
Longest winning streak on grass courts: 65 (2003-0
Longest winning streak against top ten players: 26 (2003-05)
Longest tiebreak in Masters history: 20-18 (W)
Best 1-season tournament winning percentage: 94.1% (2006)
Best 2-season match winning percentage: 95.0% (2005-06)
Best 3-season match winning percentage: 94.3% (2004-06)
Best 3-season tournament winning percentage: 69.4% (2004-06)
Best 4-season match winning percentage: 93.0% (2004-07)
Best ranked player every week during a calendar year. Tied-Five players in history
Best 7-Grand Slam final record: 100% Tied-Three players in history
Best single Grand Slam tournament win %: Won AO without dropping a single set. Tied-Four players in history
First player to win four Masters Series in one season (2005)
First player to win four Masters Series in one season consecutively (2005-'06)
First player to win four Masters Series and Masters Cup in one season (2006)
First player to win at least 10 titles in a season without losing in a final: 2004
First player to win Indian Wells and Miami back-to-back, consecutively: 2005-06
First player to be number one ranked for four consecutive physical years – 2/2/04-8/18/08
First player to win their first four Grand Slam finals. Open Era
First player to reach the final of all four Grand Slams in a calendar year. Open Era
First player to win three consecutive Grand Slam titles in two seasons. Open Era
First player to win three consecutive Grand Slam titles in two consecutive seasons. Open Era
Most singles finals won, consecutive: 24 (2003-05)
Most grass court titles: 10
Most Masters Series titles won in a season: 4 (2005, 2006)
Most career prize money (male or female): $48 million
Most prize money in one season: $10,130,620 (2007)
Most Grand Slam wins, outside of the French Open: 12
Most tournament finals won in succession: 24
Most Grand Slams won in last 7 attempts: 6
Most Grand Slams won in 10 attempts: 8

impressive, no ?

Holly   June 8th, 2009 7:50 pm ET

This was a quote from Fed after the FO win...from NYT

"I knew the day Rafa won't be in the finals, I will be there and I will win," Federer said. "I always knew that, and I believed in it. That's exactly what happened."

So he knew the only way to win was for Rafa to be out...telling isn't it? This speaks volumes about whether he is the best.

Llednar   June 8th, 2009 10:36 pm ET

naana obviously didn't watch Roger play Acasuso, Matthieu, Haas and Del Potro. I'm sure if you ask the french spectators throughout Roger's matches they'd disagree with you.

Flashback to last year, and all those straight set demolition jobs Nadal beat everyone with. That my friend is not excitement.

Greatest of all time isn't dependant on h2h records. Because if it was, Roger would also win in that respect, his h2h records with the majority of players are amazing.

He's lost to the king of clay Rafa 9 times on Clay. Now let me tell you, this was also during Roger's "dominant" period. 2004-2007. But the truth is Roger was reaching the finals at practically all the clay tournaments where he often lost to Rafa on Rafa's turf. Now where was Rafa in the hardcourt Grandslam finals during those years? He never made it to the finals, hence Roger could not play Rafa on Roger's favourite courts when Roger was at his best. The two times at wimbledon during the 2004-2007 period where Rafa reached the final, Roger came through and won. Roger had a subpar year in 2008 and Rafa took advantage. If Roger would have lost earlier in GS finals during his "bad" year in 2008, he wouldn't have faced Rafa and the h2h when related to GS finals would be more equal. But such is Roger's brilliance that even when struggling in the health department he came through to those finals, where he lost to the better in-form player of 2008. Mr Rafael Nadal.

A true champion is also measured by their longetivity. And Roger will hopefully prove the tennis world right by remaining healthy and winning just "enough" until the end of his career to be considered as the best there ever was.

20 consecutive Grandslam semi-finals is a stat that can stand on it's own. That is 5 years in tennis, which is sometimes considered a sub "tennis generation". Incredible. You'd have to look back to Lendl's 10 consecutive semi-finals and wonder how Roger's doubled that.

Roger plays a very smart game, he is able to win against most players the majority of the time, where as most players nowadays, because it is indeed very competitive can lose to each other pretty often, which is the case with most of the players in the top 50. It's not a fluke that he can beat the rest, and only lose to a select few. Roger had problems with certain players over his career, Nalbandian, even Hewitt but he turned the tables after a certain period and showed that his game can come through in the end.

Whilst many are considering Roger's years as over, they fail to envision how his game works. If there aren't any random health problems, he will be able to play the game at his level for many more years to come. Nadal has only had one outstanding year, and 4(including this one as so far) very good years. His outstanding year came in 2008. So far in 2009, he has had a very good year, to parallel his 2008 year he has a lot to accompish this year. People have underestimated Roger's dominance for 237 weeks as the No.1. The Media predicted his downfall after his 2008 season. But yet, even after his best years(2003-2007), he reached the French final, wimbledon final, usopen final, in 2008. Winning his 5th consecutive title at the USopen, and reached the Australian open final this year and now has just pulled out another win in a Grandslam at the French Open.

Now let me ask the question, what good is a h2h against a particular player, if you're not consistent enough against the majority to reach the finals for more than a couple of years? That h2h means squat if you can't win those 7 opponents at every GS event, each opponent is valued similarly, the only reason people rant on Roger's draw in slams for being too easy, is because Roger makes them easy, he knows how to play the majority of players.

Roger has won hearts, with his playing style, his oncourt proffesionalism, his offcourt demeanor and his honesty which unfortunately is attacked a lot, is easily mistaken and converted into arrogance and he is most definitely a worthy candidate for the GOAT. A title that should only really be given to someone after their career's have ended and not when they're still in the mix and can play at a very high level for 3+ years.

Ajetunmobi Ayobami Bolaji   June 9th, 2009 9:22 pm ET

Kaka is worth millions of dollars paid by Real Madrid to secure his services for the next five years.No douth about it , he is one of the football greatest stars of modern days.

Ajetunmobi Ayobami Bolaji   June 9th, 2009 9:28 pm ET

Roger Federer is no doubt the greastest tennis player of all time. He has now equaled the record of Pete Sampras of 14 grand slams.He won the elusive Roland Garross on a 3 straight set defeating Robin Soderling of Sweden. It was a final grand slam to watch.He is the greatest.

Abi   June 9th, 2009 10:20 pm ET

I think RF is the greatest player of all time. I measure by the fact that he played on four different surfaces to win his titles, like Agassi (no one else has done this). He has equalled Sampras' record (and the icing on the cake is that he has won all 4, while Sampras could). He is such an elegant and graceful player – a joy to watch. He is the reason why many of us started watching tennis – before Nadal became dominant on clay. We should unpick what we are talking about when we say his record (against Nadal in particular) does not demonstrate 'greatness'. Nadal won all but 2 of those wins against him on clay and we all know the clay court is where Nadal is almost incomparably at his best. Lastly, Federer is not only an all-rounder – tecnically and tactically sound on all courts (he has been in all finals but one in the last 6 years), but he is also a role model in many ways. Not the least in terms of depth of character. Hats off to the King of Tennis.

Shall I say on a last note that if others are to be compared with him for now, these should be the Rod Lavers, Pete Sampras', Bjorn Borgs and Don Budge. It is about a combination of laurels, character and style. Lets see how the next couple of years look for the Rafa's and Andy's then we can judge if they belong to the category RF has catapulted to!

andra   June 10th, 2009 7:20 pm ET

yes it is , definitely the greatest of all time
he brings excitement but depends of his oponent, for Roger everything seems to be so easy that he doesn't need to play at his best if is no need; he has that 'maestro hits and can do all that he wants on court! and he's human so it's not invincible
can't compare with murray -a sly player, not technical

sonthalia   June 13th, 2009 9:10 am ET

Forget about the number of slams, winning %, h2h records, no. of consecutive semifinals, no. of weeks as no. 1 and what not?

Roger is the GOAT. Think of the following:

– plays tennis as an art
– does not need to fight with the racket
– does not grunt
– does not roam around the court as a boxer
– sense of humility on and off court
– does not take on-court coaching
– does not try to bore the player on the other side of the net
– has one of the best single handed backhand shot

Nadal is also a great player. But he:

– treats tennis court like a gym
– grunts a lot
– makes millions of faces while hitting shots
– in addition to the double handed backhand might also use his legs in the future
– greatest butt scratching ability (definitely GOAT in this category)

With more Nadals and Murrays..the elegant single handed backhand will be wiped out of the tennis books.

Rohit   June 14th, 2009 5:57 am ET

I believe Federer can be considered as one of the greatest in the history. The fact that he has a career slam now, along with the Olympic gold and recordtying no.of Grand slam titles, makes him the strongest contendor for this elusive title – the greatest ever

Leave Your Comment


 

Comments are moderated by CNN, in accordance with the CNN Comment Policy, and may not appear on this blog until they have been reviewed and deemed appropriate for posting. Also, due to the volume of comments we receive, not all comments will be posted.


subscribe RSS Icon
About this blog

International Desk brings viewers into the heart of the largest news gathering operation in the world. Viewers don't come here to watch the news; they come here to be immersed in it. To feel the rush of being the first to know what's happening as stories break, and to leave knowing they've gotten the best and latest information available. The show airs Mon-Fri at 1900 CET.

Categories
Powered by WordPress.com VIP