In truth, the debate over who is the greatest tennis player of all time ended some seven months ago.
It was fitting that Pete Sampras, Rod Laver and Bjorn Borg were amongst the crowd at Wimbledon’s Centre Court on July 5th 2009. Symbolic that they, three of the four men widely regarded as the finest players ever, bore witness to events at SW19 on that day.
It was the day that one of their own rewrote the history of their sport; the day that they were reduced to simply being great. The day after which none could lay claim to being ‘the greatest’.
When Roger Federer surpassed Sampras’ record of 14 Grand Slam titles by winning his sixth Wimbledon crown, he moved beyond comparison in the world of tennis.
Federer is no longer in competition with Sampras or Laver or Borg. The question is no longer ‘is Roger Federer the greatest tennis player of all time?’.
He now belongs to an even more elite group: the best of the best, the sporting immortals, the sporting gods. Call them what you will, but athletes such as Muhammad Ali, Pele, Sir Donald Bradman, Tiger Woods and Federer are somewhere beyond greatness.
The question is now ‘is Roger Federer the greatest sportsman of all time?’.
Subjectivity v objectivity
Answering that question is much easier said than done.
In fact, it’s all but impossible. There is no way of reaching a conclusion objectively, as there is no way of accurately comparing the relative achievements of two different exponents of two different sports. Therefore, essentially, it’s all down to opinion.
For instance, you can’t say that Federer is ‘greater’ than Muhammad Ali because he has won 16 Grand Slams and Ali ‘only’ won the world heavyweight championship three times.
Why not? Because Federer has four opportunities to win a major event every year, whereas Ali only fought to gain (i.e. - not including defences) the world heavyweight title five times throughout his 21-year career.
Also, how do you assess individual sportsmen in contrast with those who have played in team sports? Can you really hope to gain a definitive solution as to who is ‘greater’ out of Tiger Woods and Pele?
Of course not. There is no right or wrong answer in this debate, and that’s what makes it such a fascinating topic.
It’s an entirely subjective argument, and all the candidates listed above (plus one or two others) could realistically lay claim to the title of ‘the greatest’.
A cocktail of determination, mental strength, effort, and, of course, an abundance of natural talent can make an athlete great. Attitude and application are just as important as aptitude and ability.
But what separates the greatest from the great? In short: consistency and longevity.
The contenders
Pele scored over 1,000 goals and won three World Cups over the course of a glittering career that spanned 21 years.
Sir Donald Bradman ended his international career with a frankly ridiculous batting average of 99.94 from 52 tests.
Tiger Woods won his 14th major title in 2008 at the age of 32 and, to date, has spent over 11 years of his 13-year professional career as world number one.
Muhammad Ali revolutionised boxing. He was a one off; a showman, an entertainer, and, above all, a force of nature in the ring. His influence transcends boxing, and indeed sport, altogether.
‘The greatest’ are the phenomenally gifted sportsmen who achieve levels of performance most can only dream of time and time again. Pele did that. Bradman did that. Ali did that. Woods does that…and so does Roger Federer.
Aura of invincibility
First of all, his numbers are staggering.
22 Grand Slam finals. 16 Grand Slam wins. 23 consecutive Grand Slam semi-finals. 237 consecutive weeks as world number one. 45 consecutive appearances at grand slam tournaments since his debut in 1999.
‘Consistent’ hardly does the guy justice, does it?
Another number? 28. That’s his age. In other words, theoretically (and scarily), he’s just hitting his physical peak.
The thing is, the statistics only tell half of the story - the best aspects of Roger Federer’s game are unquantifiable.
The statistics don’t tell you that his timing is unparalleled. The statistics don’t tell you that he glides across the court as if walking on air. The statistics don’t tell you that he hits shots others wouldn’t even imagine attempting.
Indeed, Federer’s finest attribute is his aura of invincibility. The majority of his opponents are beaten before they even step on court, and even those who compete with him at the pinnacle of his sport often succumb to the pressure of sharing a court with him.
Just look at Andy Murray in last week’s Australian Open final. The Scot went in to the final against Federer having dropped just one set throughout the entire tournament. He had destroyed Rafael Nadal in the quarter-final, and then swept aside Marin Cilic in the semi-final. He looked imperious.
But he lost in straight sets after frittering away five set points in the third set tie-break. How and why did he do that? Put simply, it was because there wasn’t a tennis player on the other side of the net - there was a tennis god.
“I can cry like Roger, it’s just a shame I can’t play like him,” said a tearful Murray in his post-match interview.
Don’t beat yourself up, Andy: you’re not alone there. No-one can play like him, and no-one will ever play like him.
Whether you’d argue for Pele, or Bradman, or Ali, or Woods, or someone else, one thing’s for sure: as sports fans, we are privileged to be living in Federer’s era. There is a genius in our midst, and for that we should all be grateful.
Is he great? Unquestionably. Is he the greatest? Quite possibly.