Reasons for Federer not being the greatest ever
I don't want to say Roger is the greatest ever simply because I rather wait till he retires or he is near the end of his carrer, having him say he will play the 2012 olympics in london is a great thing so I rather wait.
Still, everyone has their favorite, some say sampras, some say laver, some say borg. (thats usualy the 3 people come up with)
When asking for reasons on why these players are better than Roger, one usualy gets this responses
Sampras is the best becuase -- he has more slams than everybody else, 14. Roger, at the moment, has 12
Borg is the best because -- he was extremly dominant in both clay and grass but his greatest achievement is wining 5 wimbledons in a row.
Rod Laver is the best because -- 2 grand slams, this is hard to top
it also has to do with country of birth. a lot of americans will say Sampras, a lot of north europeans will say Borg, a lot of Australians will say Laver.
What I am trying to say is, if anybody denies Roger the title of greatest ever and instead dons it to any of these 3 players I mentioned. are they ready to face the facts when Roger breaks the record for which they are regardes the best?
in other words, Sampras fans clinch to the #14 number, saying he will allways be the best, I even heard them say Roger sucks, are they ready to admit Roger is the best ever when he passes that number? they would be contradicting themselves if they dont, as the sole reason for Sampras being called best ever is the number of slams he won and Roger will pass that number.
Rod Laver fans will say, Roger will never get 2 calendar year slams, still, one can make the case the Rocket wouldn't have won those slams if the slams were being played in 3 surfaces rather than two, Federer would already also have 2 calendar year slams in a row if it werent because he had to play the best clay court player EVER in the history of the planet in the final. twice.
With Borg one can easily say, Well, he dominated clay and grass, Roger hasnt won the french open.. this is true but Borg never won the US Open, he tried 9 times I think, Roger already won it 4 times in a row. so a case can be made there.
So, is everyone, fan of roger or hater, doesn't matter, ready to eventualy call Roger the greatest player who ever lived? as his resume seems to be at least as good (if not better) than the competition. or will many of you never give him the credit he desserves, even if he wins 5 more slams.
IF you don't think Federer is the greatest (or will become the greatest ever) could you please post who you think is the greatest ever and why?
I will start. even tho I think Roger will deserve the title, I am not ready to give it to him simply because his carreer is still going. so If I had to say I will say
best ever, Rod Laver
reason. 2 calendar year slams (even if its just 2 surfaces) means that for these 2 years, this guy was a god in tennis and everyone knelt before him