What Federer needs to do to be considered the greatest pro

PKBasu · Post by **PKBasu** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:31 am

In the past two years, Roger Federer has been almost unassailable at the top of the tennis world. His impregnable position is, ironically, beginning to look a bit more fragile now, with losses to Nalbandian and Haas that would have been unthinkable 6-10 months ago.
My friend Rahul Jacob pointed out in the lead story of the Financial Times weekend edition two days ago that Federer was the first man since Don Budge to win both Wimbledon and the US Open in two consecutive years. (I thought Rahul was wrong, but then a moment's reflection suggested he was probably right).
One reasonably good indicator of greatness is the ranking at the end of a year. FedEx has finished #1 for the past 2 years, but it's interesting to remember that Lleyton Hewitt and Stefan Edberg have also finished #1 twice each in their careers (although Agassi has done it just once). The all-time record holder in the Open era is Pete Sampras (6), followed by Jimmy Connors (5) and John McEnroe (4). It is Sampras' total of 6 that has to be Federer's holy grail...

insideout · Post by **insideout** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 2:03 pm

I think his game has everything that it has to have. But one thing that will make him the great pro is, charisma. Though his game is perfect I think he lacks the charisma that Agassi and Sampras possesed.! No one can add charisma to one's character I think it has to come with time and experience. I think if this missing link is found, Federer the great 'player' will become Federer the great 'pro'.

completelyconked · Post by **completelyconked** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 2:32 pm

insideout wrote:I think his game has everything that it has to have. But one thing that will make him the great pro is, charisma. Though his game is perfect I think he lacks the charisma that Agassi and Sampras possesed.! No one can add charisma to one's character I think it has to come with time and experience. I think if this missing link is found, Federer the great 'player' will become Federer the great 'pro'.

Sampras had charisma?Even americans used to find him a bore!
You can't 'find' charisma anyway.You either have it or you don't.People are born with that X-factor.It doesn't come with time and experience.

Prashant · Post by **Prashant** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:25 pm

In my book, Federer has to win a French Open to be considered one of the all-time greats. I believe that Agassi & Laver are the only men in the Open era with career Grand Slams - it is a different kind of achievement from ending the year at #1, but no less difficult.

Here are the major criteria I can think of:

1. Excellence on all surfaces, the pinnacle being a career Grand Slam. RF is a very good clay courter, and could pull this off either this year or next year.

2. Total Grand Slams. Sampras is the gold standard obviously.

3. Years at #1. Also [3a]Career longevity.

4. Domination of major contemporary opponents. Federer is off the charts here...

jai_in_canada · Post by **jai_in_canada** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:37 pm

In my books Federer is already one of the all time greats. He has already won a good number of Grand Slam titles - enough to be entered into tennis history books. And the more he wins the more he cements his place in history.

Really, what makes Federer one of the greats is that he has taken the sport of tennis to new dimensions of athleticism, completeness and artistry. Such players come along only once every 3 or 4 generations.

BSharma · Post by **BSharma** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 9:29 pm

What Federer needs to do to be considered the greatest pro (tennis player)?

I will echo Prashant and state (in order of importance to me):

1. Achieving a Grand Slam (all four Slam titles in one year) twice to equal Rod Laver (people often forget that Laver would have won more Slam titles than Sampras if he was allowed to play in them when he turned pro).

2. Winning a career Grand Slam twice or more (reflects mastery of all court surfaces)

3. Beating the record of Sampras as far as Slam titles are concerned.

4. Being #1 at the end of the year for more years than others (reflects constant high standard of play)

5. Winning more ATP titles than other players in the Open era (reflects domination over contemporary players).

It is very difficult to compare players from different eras because of advances in racket technology, modern training facilities, and easier, faster and more relaxed travel between tournament sites, etc. However, people tend to pay more attention on achievements that are harder to get, and winning a Grand Slam (all 4 slams in one year) is the hardest to achieve in pro-tennis.

(Sampras and McEnroe usually traveled in first class on commercial flights, and McEnroe often took the Concorde flight between London and New York. The same is probably true for Federer and other top players. Tennis players from the pre-jet era often traveled by ship or in small propeller driven planes.)

Sandeep · Post by **Sandeep** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 9:45 pm

Winning a FO today is much more difficult than what it was earlier. It is a fact that today there are lot more clay court specialists than ever. If you look at people who have won grand slams (AO, Wimb, USO) in past 3 to 4 years, most of them has no clue on how to play on clay. Let it be Hewitt, Roddick, Safin etc and people who won FO never won any other slam. Does that mean present generation has no complete player? I don't think so, it is that due to more and more clay court specialists coming, the gap has widened. Among the present lot if any one has come closer to winning FO, then it is Federer. It is unfair to directly compare him with some of the past career grandslam winners.

IMO Federer will be the greatest if he breaks the Sampras 14 slams record.

BSharma · Post by **BSharma** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 9:54 pm

It is true that there are more clay court specialists now than earlier, but that adds to the aura of winning the Grand Slam (in one year). If you have to be called the greatest player of all-time then you have to achieve what other contemporary players cannot do, and what the greatest players of other era have done (although it was easier to achieve then). If you leave the door open for debate then you are not a unanimous best player of all-time.

Sandeep · Post by **Sandeep** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 10:04 pm

If you leave the door open for debate then you are not a unanimous best player of all-time.

There is no single athlete in this world who is considered to be the greatest unanimously!

BSharma · Post by **BSharma** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 10:17 pm

You are correct, Sandeep.

Perhaps I should have written, "A player should not leave the door wide open to let too many players get in and compete with him or her for the greatest player of all-time."

Closing the door shut is probably impossible, and hence leaving it a little ajar is the best a player like Federer can do. Federer can close the door shut if he can win the Grand Slam (in one year) twice, beat the record of Sampras, and becomes year-end #1 about 6 times.

Prashant · Post by **Prashant** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 10:25 pm

Sandeep's point is well taken that it is more difficult winning a FO now than in the era of Laver, or even of McEnroe. But how about Agassi? He won a career Grand Slam while being a contemporary of such clay court masters as Muster, Courier, Bruguera, Kuerten et al. I'm not saying Agassi is ahead of Federer in my book - but the fact that he achieved this feat suggests to me that any claimant to being greatest of all time should achieve it also.

Note that I didn't set the calendar year slam as a target, rather a career slam.

Sandeep · Post by **Sandeep** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 10:29 pm

IMO, career slam or calender slam (or any single stat) should only be taken into account when the difference between two players is not much. Suppose Federer won some 15-20 grandslams dominating his contemporaries year after year, he would definitely be the greatest even if he didn't win FO.

BSharma · Post by **BSharma** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 10:38 pm

It is a never-ending debate. If we cannot agree with the definition of the greatest all-time player, how can we crown one! Until then, we should choose our own greatest players and live with our choices.

puneets · Post by **puneets** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 10:48 pm

BSharma wrote:It is a never-ending debate.

Imagine BSharma saying this in one of the debating competitions he judges.

jai_in_canada · Post by **jai_in_canada** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 11:07 pm

BSharma wrote:It is a never-ending debate. If we cannot agree with the definition of the greatest all-time player, how can we crown one! Until then, we should choose our own greatest players and live with our choices.

Are you saying that there is not a One Main Tennis God? Are you not a tennis monotheist? Can we worship different Tennis Gods and still have a working Tennis Religion?