Is Federer The Best Ever?

Now that Roger Federer has finally achieved the career Grand Slam with his win at the French Open, are we finally ready to call him the best ever?

Pete Sampras thinks so. He said as much after Federer won this morning and tied him with 14 career Grand Slam titles.

But I say, “not so fast, Pete.”

Can’t say I formulated this opinion all on my own – props to an old buddy this morning who led me down this path.

I agree with said “old buddy” in believing that, with the exception of Nadal, Federer can’t be called the best because he didn’t face the same level of competition that players like Sampras, McEnroe and Laver had to deal with in their careers.

(Okay, full disclosure: I have no idea who Rod Laver competed with back in the ‘60’s…but I’m going to go out on a limb and say it was a better crop of players than we’re seeing today).

Now don’t get me wrong. This isn’t Federer’s fault. You can’t blame him for beating the players put in front of him to the tune of a record-tying 14 Grand Slam wins.

But if you’re going to make the argument for ‘greatest of all time,’ you have to take into account whom he’s had to contend with.

Nadal is obviously Roger’s main foil, but they’ve only been TRUE rivals for about three years!

Pete had Andre. McEnroe had Borg…and you can throw Jimmy Connors in there, too. And I’m sure Laver battled with SOMEBODY.

The point is, I’m just not comfortable calling Federer the greatest male tennis player of all time. Now right now, at least. Remember, the guy’s still 27 and probably has at least four more Grand Slams left in him.

In the high likelihood he achieves that number and probably even more, he could make a run at 20 career slams, and that would probably be enough to solidify his standing as the best ever.

But 14 – currently tied with Sampras – isn’t enough to make him the run away greatest.

The jury is still out on this one. But Roger still has plenty of time to make us all believers.

Matt Estreich for The Huddle