Wimbledon

[jdshock]

Federer's comeback was really spectacular.

[WuDrWu]

Federer's comeback was really spectacular.

No doubt. Cilic unraveled a bit, and there were a couple of hairline calls that were HUGE, but the 7 time champion gave fans yet another memorable moment.


Perhaps the classiest champion of all time.

[WuShock16]

I defer to a buddy who played tennis in college and now coaches at the high school level. I asked him if in-his-prime Federer was the best player in tennis history.

His answer: "Awfully tough to argue otherwise. Like Tiger, he changed his sport to create a new breed of player."

[Shock Top]

Federer, like is comeback today, is unreal.

[jdshock]

I defer to a buddy who played tennis in college and now coaches at the high school level. I asked him if in-his-prime Federer was the best player in tennis history.

His answer: "Awfully tough to argue otherwise. Like Tiger, he changed his sport to create a new breed of player."

Nadal and Djokovic are also all time greats. My belief is that Federer's legacy as the greatest of all time is only in question because he stopped being dominant earlier than was anticipated, due to two players who are also out of this world good.

[wufan]

Nadal and Djokovic are also all time greats. My belief is that Federer's legacy as the greatest of all time is only in question because he stopped being dominant earlier than was anticipated, due to two players who are also out of this world good.

For a tennis player to be dominant for more than 5 years is amazing. Most of the greats peak around 20 and are fringe seeds in grand slams by 25; retired before 30. Federer is 34 and won 17 slams over 10 years.

Pete Sampras is close, but even he retired at 31.

[WuShock16]

Nadal and Djokovic are also all time greats. My belief is that Federer's legacy as the greatest of all time is only in question because he stopped being dominant earlier than was anticipated, due to two players who are also out of this world good.

No arguments there. Nadal at his peak was simply unbeatable on clay. I'll have to preface this next comment by saying that I am going by memory on this. It seems that my buddy said that Nadal was maybe a little bit more vulnerable to be upset. Sure, he could win big matches, again especially at Roland Garros, but he was also prone to upsets against lesser opponents at other tournaments. Federer was a little more consistent with his success.

As for Djokovic, he might be a by-product of Federer's success creating a new breed of tennis player like my buddy mentioned.

But yes, all three are in any argument for all-time greatest players ever.

[jdshock]

No arguments there. Nadal at his peak was simply unbeatable on clay. I'll have to preface this next comment by saying that I am going by memory on this. It seems that my buddy said that Nadal was maybe a little bit more vulnerable to be upset. Sure, he could win big matches, again especially at Roland Garros, but he was also prone to upsets against lesser opponents at other tournaments. Federer was a little more consistent with his success.

As for Djokovic, he might be a by-product of Federer's success creating a new breed of tennis player like my buddy mentioned.

But yes, all three are in any argument for all-time greatest players ever.

This conversation got me to look up head-to-head-to-head stats of the three. Federer actually has a losing record against both Nadal and Djokovic. Djokovic has a winning record against both Nadal and Federer. Though, age certainly plays a part in those records.

@WuDrWu: calling Federer the "classiest champion" ever (which is hard to argue with) makes me think he doesn't think Federer is the best ever. For him (or anyone else), if it's not Federer, who is the best of all time?