US Open (Flushing Meadow)

Terrific match. It's matches like this one that prevent me from saying that Federer is the best ever. I can certainly see the argument for him, but he's not mentally tough enough for me to give him that title. Federer's a great frontrunner, and looks awesome when he's confident and relaxed. He's won so many titles so easily, just because he was so much better than his opponents. But when he's pushed, he's ordinary (relatively speaking). His career record in five-set matches is just above .500 -- 18-16, I think. He's never figured out how to deal with Nadal, who was the first guy to really challenge him. (Federer almost always looks flat, passive, timid, uninspired when they play. Can a guy who looks like that in big matches against his greatest rival be considered the best ever?) So as soon as Djokovic saved those two match points, I knew Federer wasn't going to win. I know it's tough to deal with losing two match points, and I know everyone -- no matter how great -- blows matches here and there. But I'd like to think the best player ever would show some mental toughness in that situation and hold things together, rather than collapsing.

It'll be interesting to see what this does to Federer going forward. He's no worse than the third best player in the world, and still plenty good enough to pick off a major title here or there. He's basically even with the guy who's clearly been the best player in the world this year. That's good news for him, in a sense. But he's only going to get older, and I wonder if all the big disappointments he's had recently will motivate him or discourage him.

 

Well, Quakes, when somebody has more Slam titles than Federer, they can be considered the greatest ever. Nadal might get there yet. But yet is the keyword in that sentence.
For the record, I think Laver is the greatest ever. We'll never know, because of the way the game worked back in those days, but my Dad, who was a pretty fair player, and who has pretty much seen them all since Don Budge, swears Pancho Gonzales would have won 20 or more Slam titles if they'd let pros play in the '50s and '60s.

 

Michael, I'm with you. I think it's still Laver. The fact that Federer has more major titles doesn't automatically make him better, at least in my mind. Was Roy Emerson the best player ever until Sampras passed him?

 

The stat ESPN keeps showing is that Federer won at least one Slam tourney every year from 2003-2010. That's a long time to be at the top. Emerson, a fine champion, was never regarded as the world's number one in his career. Federer sure was. He was a dominant champion, and has a strong argument for best ever. I disagree, but his record speaks loudly.

 

Half of Emerson's Grand Slam titles were in Australia, which many top players didn't bother to play back then (and for many years afterward, too).

Connors only went there twice. Borg played there once, as a 17-year-old, and never went back.

It was too far, too inconvenient (played around Christmas and New Year's until the late 80s) and paid too little prize money.

Many Aussies (Emerson, Margaret Court, etc.) fattened their Grand Slam totals at this tournament against horribly weak competition.

 

My point with Emerson was only that having the most Grand Slam titles does not, by itself, make you the greatest player ever. (That was in response to your comment, Michael, that "when somebody has more Slam titles than Federer, they can be considered the greatest ever.") So the fact that Federer has more than anyone does not automatically make him the best, at least to me (and to you, too, it appears). Of course Federer can make a strong argument that he's the greatest. I'm just not quite buying it.

 

Rod Laver won 11 Grand Slam titles, and was ineligible for 24 (1963 through 1968) as a pro before the big four opened to professionals. He won six Grand Slams as an amateur (of 12 from 1960 through 1962) and five more (of eight in 1968 and 1969) in the open era. The same pace from 1963 through 1968, and he wins 12 to 14 more.

 

Tiger used to never miss the key par putts and Federer never lost the big points. At least Fed is still the third-best guy and not a disaster, but it's certainly a different sports world than it was a few years back, those things they made look so easy now a struggle.

And since I'm comparing them, when's the last year where both guys went majorless? 1998?

 

It is really impossible to use tournaments won, even Slams, to rate tennis players historically due to the game's insane amateurism fetish that only ended in the late '60s. Prior to then, all we have to go on is when the top amateur turned pro (as they all did) to join Jack Kramer's tour, and the top amateur played like 80 singles matches a year against whoever was top pro, the top pro beat the top amateur's brains out pretty regularly. So it's reasonable to conclude that Pancho Gonzales was the best player in the world for longer than Roger Federer was the top player in the world, but we don't such comparisons by number, only by feel.
Perhaps it's just best to say, Federer holds the record for most Grand Slam wins (a pretty big record) and let it go at that. Nadal certainly has the chance to break that record. Based off what we saw yesterday, he'll take some beating Monday.
PS: In 1998, Federer was 16. It's odd to see him clearly reduced to the ranks of tough semi opponent from champion, but it's even odder to think, hey, Tiger Woods is not young!

 

Djokovic and Nadal are playing ridiculous tennis right now. 16 mins. for one game!!