Is Roger Federer the Best Tennis player of all times?
This question has been going on in so many commentary boxes in the past few years but you have to wonder, what exactly makes a player good on a specific surface such as clay and grass? Most people say that heavy topspin players are usually good on clay but then some people say that Jimmy Connors could have won the French if he wasn't excluded from it "during his peak".Similarily Roger would need to develop those heavy topspin like Rafa in order to get past the “Spanish bulldog”.
There is no doubt Roger Federer is the best in business today, but is he the best all round player? The answer is NO.Let us look into two players I really like to watch - Connors and Federer.They both were so talented that they could win on their least favorite surface.
Connors was obviously most comfortable on medium fast hardcourts while Federer was most comfortable on grass. Borg had Connors on the red clay similar to Nadal getting Fed on red clay.
My generation(at least in India) grew up watching Johnnie Mac,Ivan Lendl and Connors in the early to mid eighties ,then Boom Boom Becker and ever gentle Swedes Edberg & Wilander in the late 80’s and then Players like Stich,Agasii,Sampras and Rafter dominating the mid to late 90’s
Now to Rod Laver, the chink in Laver armor is that his Grand slam was accomplished at the time AO and US were played on grass. So he won slams at ONLY two surfaces.The only male player to win career slam on FOUR different surfaces is Agassi.To me Borg's accomplishment winning 6 RG's and 5 Wimbledon’s is far more impressive (he won RG 4times back to back, Wimbey 5 times...)
Laver won too less Slams in the Open era, he didn't have the best competition too, due to the pro/amateur tours.Connors missed clay success.Borg missed Hard courts slam, however, he's quite closer to being dominant on all surfaces.Lendl missed grass... (Note 1 Final at AO while still played on grass and 2 Wimbledon finals) and Sampras, clay.
To me only 4 players had been truly masters on 4 different surfaces - Borg (only US his jinx but 4 finals there, numerous titles on HC's as well winning 2 masters and 1 final), Lendl (3 finals on grass), Agassi Career slam on 4 different surfaces and Federer 3 slams and more on 3 different surfaces (2 RG finals, 4 masters on clay with some other titles on clay and numerous finals).
So its fair to conclude that Andre Agassi is the best allround player of all times, although Roger Federer would be that person if he is able to get a grip on the Paris Clay.
This question has been going on in so many commentary boxes in the past few years but you have to wonder, what exactly makes a player good on a specific surface such as clay and grass? Most people say that heavy topspin players are usually good on clay but then some people say that Jimmy Connors could have won the French if he wasn't excluded from it "during his peak".Similarily Roger would need to develop those heavy topspin like Rafa in order to get past the “Spanish bulldog”.
There is no doubt Roger Federer is the best in business today, but is he the best all round player? The answer is NO.Let us look into two players I really like to watch - Connors and Federer.They both were so talented that they could win on their least favorite surface.
Connors was obviously most comfortable on medium fast hardcourts while Federer was most comfortable on grass. Borg had Connors on the red clay similar to Nadal getting Fed on red clay.
My generation(at least in India) grew up watching Johnnie Mac,Ivan Lendl and Connors in the early to mid eighties ,then Boom Boom Becker and ever gentle Swedes Edberg & Wilander in the late 80’s and then Players like Stich,Agasii,Sampras and Rafter dominating the mid to late 90’s
Now to Rod Laver, the chink in Laver armor is that his Grand slam was accomplished at the time AO and US were played on grass. So he won slams at ONLY two surfaces.The only male player to win career slam on FOUR different surfaces is Agassi.To me Borg's accomplishment winning 6 RG's and 5 Wimbledon’s is far more impressive (he won RG 4times back to back, Wimbey 5 times...)
Laver won too less Slams in the Open era, he didn't have the best competition too, due to the pro/amateur tours.Connors missed clay success.Borg missed Hard courts slam, however, he's quite closer to being dominant on all surfaces.Lendl missed grass... (Note 1 Final at AO while still played on grass and 2 Wimbledon finals) and Sampras, clay.
To me only 4 players had been truly masters on 4 different surfaces - Borg (only US his jinx but 4 finals there, numerous titles on HC's as well winning 2 masters and 1 final), Lendl (3 finals on grass), Agassi Career slam on 4 different surfaces and Federer 3 slams and more on 3 different surfaces (2 RG finals, 4 masters on clay with some other titles on clay and numerous finals).
So its fair to conclude that Andre Agassi is the best allround player of all times, although Roger Federer would be that person if he is able to get a grip on the Paris Clay.
