[Dark Savante]

The best male tennis player of all time?

I hate modern tennis. It's all power play and very little finesse so I rarely watch it, but Federer? He's like an artist out there. Manipulates the ball and his opponents in a way I don't think tennis has seen before. Is he the best male player there has ever been?

[MtP07]

Don't know if I'm qualified to say he's the best ever, as I've only been watching tennis since the Sampras/Agassi era. But I must say I've never seen anyone dominate the way Federer does.

[Teso Dos Bichos]

I would say so.

[SirManchester]

I watched the final against Baghdatidis just a few hours ago, and been following the guy for almost two years now, he's something else. I agree with DS, he incorporates power, technique and has total understanding of the game. he's also very fun to watch.

[Dark Savante]

It's just how...he controls his opponents, like they are puppets on a string. On any surface! >_< in any fashion he pleases.

He must be so demoralising to play against. He's going to win so many slams before he retires if he stays fit. Unreal.

[SirManchester]

The record for amount of slams is fourteen by Sampras, Federer already has seven. That's astonishing, and he's also on his way to do what no one has done before, win four consecutive grand slams.

[Dark Savante]

Originally Posted by SirManchester

The record for amount of slams is fourteen by Sampras, Federer already has seven. That's astonishing, and he's also on his way to do what no one has done before, win four consecutive grand slams.

Yes and Sampras was rubbish on clay. Isn't Federer only 23 or 24 IIRC he's relatively young. Who knows how many he'll amass by the time he retires.

[haven]

We'll see. Part of the key to being a great player is longevity. When Federer starts approaching Sampras #'s, then we'll talk.

Federer needs a good foil, though. Part of it's that he's great - but he also lacks serious competition. He really needs a true rival. All of his better adversaries are seriously flawed.

I'll also acknowledge the opposing proposition that his chief opponents are great, but that he's just the greatest ever. I don't see it, though. Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, etc, all seem to have holes in their game in a way that the true greats don't.

[littleman]

Originally Posted by haven

We'll see. Part of the key to being a great player is longevity. When Federer starts approaching Sampras #'s, then we'll talk.

Federer needs a good foil, though. Part of it's that he's great - but he also lacks serious competition. He really needs a true rival. All of his better adversaries are seriously flawed.

I'll also acknowledge the opposing proposition that his chief opponents are great, but that he's just the greatest ever. I don't see it, though. Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, etc, all seem to have holes in their game in a way that the true greats don't.

That he can deal with all his different adversaries only shows how "fully equipped" Federer is.. he might not have the forehand of Pete Sampras, or Agassi's backhand, or Roddick's serve but he has everything in great quality, such that he can pull out ANYTHING against any opponent.

I think one of the reason why so many tennis greats have proclaimed Federer as one of the best, if not the best ever, is because of how "complete" he is. Whether he can match up to Sampras' record is a different matter; that is wholly dependent on competition. Right now there is no dispute he is the best in the world, and probably the most complete in the history of tennis.

[Motterman]

Federer needs a rival.