Just because Federer has won the most Grand Slam tournaments makes him the greatest player ever? He is 7-13 vs Nadal. That doesn't even make him a better player than Nadal. Nadal consistently beats him one-on-one, The GREATEST TENNIS PLAYER EVER should not have such a glaring losing record against one of his contemporaries. What am I missing????

Greatest is typically defined by the number of titles in all sports. Since there is no way to really compare people from different eras, titles is one objective measure.

In other words the term 'the greatest' is just BS to begin with.

In other words the term 'the greatest' is just BS to begin with.

Mostly, yeah. But one slightly less BS-ian way of judging "the greatest" is to measure players by how much better they were than their contemporaries. For instance, Babe Ruth is widely considered to be the greatest player in the history of baseball -- not because he would destroy the opposition if he were magically transported to the twenty-first century (in truth, he'd probably be a middling relief pitcher) -- but because, given the same playing conditions as his contemporaries, he utterly dominated them.

Of course, this method has it's problems too -- Ruth had a large field of competitors, for instance, who weren't allowed to play the game at the same level as him. Still, if we have to try to judge who's the best in a given sport over a long period of time, it's probably a better way than most.

I don't know anything at all about tennis, but if Federer really can't beat Nadal, it seems odd to call him the best. Then again, there was probably a third-rate pitcher who struck Ruth out all the time, but gave up monster home runs to Jimmy Foxx. So who knows.

Like the man said: BS. But amusing BS.

I suspect most (though not all) of his losses against Nadal were on clay or asphalt. Traditionally, a player's grass court record got the heaviest weight when comparing a player with his contemporaries.

Still, I cannot say Federer is the greatest player of all time because I don't know how well he would do with a heavy, small-sweetspotted wooden racket, in five-set matches without tie-breakers. I suspect that traditional tennis rules and conditions would expose flaws in his technique.

Jesus, talk to your local goverment about replacing that surface, will ya? i strongly recommend artifical clay; best on your joints!

Still, I cannot say Federer is the greatest player of all time because

I can only quote Jazzguitarman here: "In other words the term 'the greatest' is just BS to begin with"

Don't get me wrong I love to discuss who is the greatest with people. What can be interesting is to see what criteria one uses. The criteria you mention is a good one but as you noted it also has some holes (one big one for Ruth as you noted being blacks not allow to play!).

Thus we are back to the greatest in their era and thus we are left with multiply 'the greatest'!

Since when did a personal record against one opponent mean anything?

So all those times that Federer won a grand slam that Nadal didn't even reach the final to, those basically mean nothing because Nadal wasn't good enough to get to the finals that time? What a bunch of stupid nonsense. Most grand slams == greatest player. Pretty much end of story.

"Shit I won another grand slam, but Nadal got beat in the early round... Man I guess its just another stupid trophy for me this time. Maybe next time I'll get lucky and Nadal will actually get to the finals, then I can improve my greatest of all time record!!!"

Let's add the fact that Roger has reached at least the semifinals of a major some astronomical number of times in a row...something like twice the number of the next player in all of men's tennis history. That consistency is another mark of greatness. Nadal's style of play will never allow him to match that.

The presence of Nadal is definitely a quandary in the "greatest of all time" debate, but there is more to the argument than the win:loss record against a single opponent.

Nadal is 9-1 against Federer on red clay - Nadal's preferred surface. That means Roger is 6-4 vs Nadal on all other surfaces. That is what you are missing.

First NO criteria = greatest players, since the term is very subjective. Anyhow, one has to take into consideration the opponents of the era. e.g. one could have more titles but the opponents of the era were clearly weaker than the opponents of someone with less titles.

Now I do agree that Nadal is not greater than Federer.

You're right. Otherwise Laver would be the greatest and though I saw some of is matches (including the epic against Rosewall) I do not think he could beat either Nadal or Federer consistently.

jazzguitarman:

Don't get me wrong I love to discuss who is the greatest with people. What can be interesting is to see what criteria one uses. The criteria you mention is a good one but as you noted it also has some holes (one big one for Ruth as you noted being blacks not allow to play!).

The hole is even bigger than that. Many of Ruth's fellow players suspected that he was colored; Ty Cobb once refused to share a room with him for that reason. (Ruth grew up in an orphanage; he had a swarthy look and a really flat nose despite being presumably of "german" ancestry.) So not only didn't he have to compete with players known to be black, he may have enjoyed the athletic advantage of being colored himself.