This question is posed every time I watch a tennis match on TV involving Roger Federer and some pundits are willing to
award this title of best player of all time to Federer.
We can all understand that the press will have to be positive and
cater to the ATP to get their passes and satisfy their employers, but with this kind of comments and write ups they do a great
disservice to their audiences and the sport of tennis, because they are not taking into account past past performances from
players such as; Rod Laver, Jimmy Connors, Björn Borg, Ivan Lendl, Pete Sampras and totally ignoring history.
Recently at the Australian Open final
press conference, Roger Federer admitted the genius tag sits comfortably wit
h him now;
"I mean, look, I guess I'm the best
tennis player in the world," Federer said when asked how he reacts to the word genius being used to describe him and his
sublime game.
"You can call me a genius because I'm outplaying many of my opponents, kind of maybe playing a bit
different, you know, winning when I'm not playing my best. All of that maybe means a little bit of that. So it's nice."
Well what happened to humbleness in victory and in sports? That is another question for another article. The aim of this
article is to put the question "Who Is the best player of all time?" to rest. I could argue that any expert in the world;
TV commentators, coaches, and others, would easily agree that, in tennis the younger you are, the harder it is to win against older
opponents. Also younger players who have won major Grand Slam tournaments in any era, were true prodigies and perhaps since the word
is so loosely applied these days you can call them even geniuses, if you will.
Following such guideline, and then looking at the record versus
age the best player of all time is:
1- Björn Borg (SWE) Birthdate: 6-Jun-56
Between the ages of 17 and 25 years and 4 months old Björn Borg won (61) Singles Career Titles!
Roger Federer
between the ages of 17 and 25 years and 4 months old won (45) Singles Career Titles, 16
less titles then Borg won!
Borg, won 6 Major Grand Slam titles at Roland Garros on clay 5 of
them consecutive and 5 consecutive titles at Wimbledon on grass.
Roger Federer has won 0 Roland Garros and
4 Wimbledons, 2 Australian Opens, 3 US Opens.
Borg at 17 years old was finalist in 4 ATP events
1973--Buenos Aires, Monte Carlo, San Francisco, Stockholm!
Roger Federer at 17 years old in
1998- reached Toulouse quarter finals.
1 (Ex-aequo) - Rod Laver (AUS) Birthdate:
9-Aug-38
At 24 to 25 years old Rod Laver in 1962 won all four of tennis' Grand Slam singles titles in
the same year the Australian Open - French Open - Wimbledon - US Open. At the end of 1962 to1968 when Rod Laver was at his prime,
he was forbidden to play any Grand Slam tournaments because he turned professional.
Rod Laver is the only player
in tennis history to have won twice All four of tennis' Grand Slam singles titles in the same year (Australian
Open - French Open - Wimbledon - US Open) —first as an amateur in 1962, and then again as a professional in 1969.
Roger Federer (SUI)Birthdate: 8-Aug-81
Roger for example at age 25 years has
not once won all 4 Grand Slams titles in a single calendar year!
Rod Laver has won
(39) professional Singles Career Titles starting at age 30 years old (1968)!
If the press can call what Roger Federer is doing today "genius",
I do not know what they would have called Rod Laver winning all 4 Grand Slam titles Australian Open -
French Open - Wimbledon - US Open in a single year at age 31 years old!
Anyway, for me and I hope for you too, with all my respect, the question and
speculation of who is or who was the best player of all time is answered. Until someone younger then Bjorn Borg achieves
a better record, Borg is the best player of all times! This does not mean that I vouch for Borg's tennis
game, which I did not like at all, but his record for a young athlete and for any athlete of any age is absolutely awesome
and unrivaled by his peers or any one player of our times!
Was Borg a genius? No, he was just an
excellent tennis player!
Comment by saspcruz on 2007-10-09 19:23:48 The challenge is that today's players just can not cope with a simple ruse of the past which was the backhand slice. Roger Federer destroys them all with it; either short or deep and low to their backhands, short or deep and low to their forehands or yet with simple floaters.
The reality is that he brings them all to teeters and beats them with a shot that 100% percent of the players in the 40's, 50's, 60s and 70's and most in the 80's handled with ease. Even Bjorn Borg trashed the slices!
This obviously means that even though Roger Federer is a great player, there is a major flaw in the development of present ATP players which allows such great weakness, therefore dominace of a single player.
Which goes with this saying "In the land of the blind, the one who can see is King!"
Comment by GUEST on 2007-09-06 02:44:10 the players today are much more competitive compared to the players in the time of laver, etc...
so its harder to dominate today than their time....
its amazing how federer dominated tennis with all the competitive players...
Comment by steve/
on 2008-09-11 06:20:08 It's so hard to compare players from different eras, so this argument will rage on, I'm sure. But when discussing who's the BOAT, to only consider what a player did up to the age of 25 is ridiculous. In this discussion you HAVE to look at the players whole career. I worshiped Borg, and it killed me when he retired at 25. But that was his choice; just as it was his choice not to play in Australia. Had he not skipped all those Aussie opens, he could have a total of 15-17 slams, even retiring at 25. But those are the choices he made, and I bet there's a bit of regret about it now. But longevity is going to be part of any "all time" discussion. Laver holds amazingly well in that category, and it's a shame that the rules kept him from achieving all that he could. But you would also have to admit that the mental and physical demands of the tour are quite different today than they were then.
Like I said, this debate will rage on, with many compelling arguments to be made. But the one thing that does not change with time is the pressure to win. When it's all on the line, does one deliver? Over the past 5-6 years, Roger Federer has delivered like nobody else; on all surfaces, in all venues. Yeah, he hasn't won the French; but only because of one guy. 3 finals and a semi over the past four years looks pretty good. And he's not done yet. Right now, his chances to be considered the BOAT look good. Hey, Laver and Sampras already call him that; I think I'll defer to their opinion.
Comment by Sergio Cruz on 2008-09-11 07:49:43 Steve, Thanks for your comment. I understand your point. I like Federer immensely and he is the only tennis player that makes me turn on the TV these days. His record is great but, is based on one shot players today can not counter, the slice backhand in conjunction with the winning forehand. These two shots alone everyone mastered them until the mid 1980's. Federers dominance would not have been the same those days either. As far as Rod Lavers opinion, he is an humble man, as far as Pete Sampras I do not take it seriously, I use to babysit him in 1988! :-) (Because young people reads this site too, comments have to be approved to avoid the smut from people making publicity for less reputable websites.)
Comment by Sergio Cruz on 2008-10-10 13:00:53 Gaspard I love your tenacity. But, you need to watch the tapes better and you will see that very high percentage of the famous forehands from Roger are set up by a backhand slice.
Without trying to patronize your opinion, I would like to bring your attention to the fact that Goran Ivanisovic was never a serve and volley player but, rather a server with a high quota of aces with very limited speed. (A great guy I know him personnaly). Patrick Rafter was a serve and volley player.
As far as the rest the better training, better athletes, better etc... I just got to remind you that Bob Beamon, Sergei Bubuka, Bjorn Borg and Rod Laver belong to a league of their own.
Bjorn Borg because of his exceptional athleticism was far fitter then any one player today and I trained a few of them to know.
Rod Laver is up there in fitness with Bjorn Borg because of his atleticism and because he was trained by the best coach/trainer that ever lived Mr. Harry Hopman.
Because I was trained by Mr. Hopman as a player I also know the difference between Mr. Hopman as men coach/trainer and Nick Bollittieri and the rest that came after.
The difference is Mr. Hopman was the total package and trained players to be great athletes. If you trained with Mr. Hopman you would never lose a match because you were not fit.
While with Nick Bollittieri, once someone pinches the ego bubble, the whole thing falls appart (all you got to do is read Andre Agassi, Aroon Krickstein, Jim Courier, Jimmy Arias and you will understand). I still remember my old friend J. B. commenting on how the place was a saloon for poodles.
Comment by Sergio Cruz on 2008-10-10 00:21:16 In response to Gaspard.
Of course Federer has a complete package, but it is the backhand slice that breaks down his opponents. And the main reason why he has a bad record against Nadal is exactly because for some mental reason Federer does not use the backhand slice against him.
Quantity does not necessarely mean quality. Ninety percent of todays professional players men or women do not know to serve and volley or how to go to the net and much less how to volley. What makes you think tennis is better or coaching is better? Plus Federer in his own words said, that he did not serve and volley more often because it made him tired! Fitter?
Well, Bjorn Borg at 14 was already the best under 18 junior in the world and playing main draw ATP tournaments at 15 beating the N 7 ATP O. Parun (NZL) .
The "prodigies" you mentioned fell to their own limitations.
Comment by Gaspard on 2008-10-10 12:25:16 Federer's whole game breaks opponents down. Some points he wins with aces, others service winners, others serve/groundie one-twos, groundie/volley combos, extended baseline rallies, backhand winners/forced errors, forehand winners/forced errors, serve and volley plays, random net flourishes, slice and dice manoeuvres, drawn errors with defence etc. There is not one overwhelming predominant way he wins points. His points come from all over the place. If I had to choose his two biggest point winners, it would be his serve and forehand, not his backhand slice. His serve is great, both first and second, but his forehand is a phenomenon, slicing through opponents like a hot knife through butter. He has the consistently biggest forehand in the game, but also uses it with great variety, subtlety, spin and control. These are some of the tangibles, but what impresses me equally are the intangibles. His hands/touch, his time, his poise, his mental quickness and court sense. If Federer gets a racket on a ball, he always seems to be able to get it back into play. Nadal has this same quality and Hingis had it on the women's side, that sense of presence and oneness with racket, ball, court and opponent. I don't know whether this can be taught/developed or whether it just comes down to natural talent, but it's a great asset to have and gives you a distinct advantage over those who do not have it.
The reason Federer does not slice more against Nadal, is because it does not work. Firstly, it's very difficult to play an aggressive, deep, consistent, low slice off Nadal's loopy, high kicking, heavy ball. Secondly, it does not seem to bother Nadal. In fact, the reduction in pace allows him to quickly move into position and dictate play with his forehand. I've seen him consistently do this on clay and grass when Federer slices. On hard, traction is better, so it's not so easy for Nadal to dictate, but on the natural surfaces, the slice has to be perfect to bother Nadal at all. This is very tough to do consistently.
Federer does not serve and volley because it's a less viable option today than it was in the past. Surfaces are slower and higher bouncing, even at Wimbledon, and the quality of groundtrokes/returns are much better. It has nothing to do with fitness. Federer is one of the fittest players out there. He has mentioned numerous times why he does not serve and volley more, and it has to do with the conditions. Here's an excerpt from a recent interview with Ivanisevic commentating on playing conditions:
You were the last serve-volleyer to win Wimbledon in 2001. How do you think you would do if you were playing in this era and will we ever see a serve-volleyer in the top 10 again?
Goran: "Tough, because first of all the grass is very slow. I played the seniors there last year and the bounces on Centre Court and Court One were so high.
Before you couldn't stay back, it was impossible because the court was so quick. Now, I ask Roger Federer why he doesn't come in more and he says, 'I can't, it's too slow.' So I don't think it's going to happen because they're going to make the court even slower and it would be a suicide mission.
I would try but probably I would get passed so I would stay back, I wouldn't have a choice."
I think the quality of tennis and coaching is better because I can see the improvements with my own eyes. Technical levels are better across the board and the game is quicker, but also more consistent. Now everyone has big groundies and serves and can move well. I think the advances in the movement and court coverage is one of the big developments in the modern game. Not as many are serve and volleying because it's much tougher to do today. Technically, the stars of the past, have nothing on the journeymen of the present, in spite of some improvements in technology.
Coaching used to mostly be a private one on one enterprise. When Bollettieri came along in the late 80s, he was an anomaly, taking the earlier academies to a new level. Now there are 100s of similar academies all over the world, using the latest understanding and technology to hone skills even further. It's not possible to play tennis as a casual hobbie, then turn pro later any more. It seems you now have to be hothoused in one of the tennis factories, from the youngest of ages, to stand a chance. The whole enterprise of career development and maintenance is just much more professional and competitive than it ever was.
It's only natural that standards in sport improve. This is the history of all sports.
Comment by Gaspard/
on 2008-10-08 04:07:55 To attribute Federer's success to one shot is ridiculous. These are the best players in the world we are talking about. They have had 4 or 5 years to find a way to challenge him and they have not been able to, with the exception of Nadal. They are also at liberty to employ the same tactics as Federer, if it is such a sure bet. Nadal would probably not be able to challenge Federer if he were not a lefty, but by some freak accident, it just so happens Nadal's lefty spin game, was the almost perfect remedy to best counteract Federer's game.
There can be no excuses for Federer's success, other than all his ability. He grew up in exactly the same tennis era as the rest of his peers, so give credit where credit is due. He is the most technically impressive player I have ever seen, on this I agree with Ion Tiriac, who said the same thing last year in Madrid. He's the modern day Laver and all but achieved a double Grand Slam like Laver, in 2006 and 2007. In fact, only one of Laver's calendar Grand Slams really count, because all the best players had already turned professional the first time he did it. Today, everything is better, competition is tougher, more countries are involved, players are technically better, fitter, more professional, training is better, development of players is better, coaching is better. What Federer has been able to achieve in this era is remarkable.
And the premise that it's more difficult to do things younger, is flawed. Certainly, young success is impressive to those of us who take a little longer to develop, but it clearly is not as impressive to those who do not fall into this category. People develop at different stages, but what really matters is the achievement. Einstein is no less worthy a genius because he was a later developer. He'll end up having achieved more than most of the prodigies you can mention. Also, if it were tougher to do things younger, would not prodigies like Becker, Hewitt and Chang have achieved more in their later years? Players develop when players develop. Age is irrelevant. Age and development is a unique process to each and not anything anyone can take any credit for in the grand scheme of things.
Tennis Articles 
