Ok critics and spectators of R. Federer tell me this....?

This is a great breakdown. I'm the biggest Federer fan, and I really believe Nadal will go down as one of the greats. I've made my case on this forum numerous times on why Federer is the GOAT.

People kept saying how this is a bad era of tennis. You've just made a great point on how this is the strongest era of tennis, where a tennis player like Nadal wins 3 slams, 2 wimby finals and 9 masters within three years and can't reach the #1 spot. You can't find another player where he won three grand slams, and did not reach the number #1. This just goes to show the greatness of Federer.

I think Roger is the greatest player ever but I also believe if Nadal played in Sampras' or even 2003, then Pete would not have been ranked #1 all those years and Roddick never would have smelled the #1 spot and in fact never would have won a slam. Nadal doesn't beat himself and makes his opponents work hard for everything, he is a better and stronger version of Agassi and Hewitt. His biggest issues are health and a guy named Roger.

A few years ago Agassi was playing great in Canada and was smoked by Nadal. Everything Agassi does, Nadal just does better. As for Roddick, they met in Indian Wells and regardless of how much Patrick McEnroe said Andy has this in the bag, his inability to return or play defense led to an easy Nadal victory. Nadal's game is very steady and is tough to beat (notice how only certain players ever beat him as in ones that can return and play defense).

I don't think Nadal's legacy should be diminished because of playing in Roger's time. Nadal has won 3 slams and is a threat to win on EVERY surface, could Chang, Hewitt, Roddick or any other also ran say the same? Sampras was great but he was never a threat on clay (except as a threat to pull out or lose in straight sets). With Nadal, you know he is going to dominate all clay events and will compete on the other surfaces which would always give him enough points to be #1 in the pre-Roger era (how else do you explain Moya, Kuerten, Ferrero or Muster's short run #1.

I think its that Federer is already the best ever, but people haven't given him that right, considering he's never won the French. It's the only title Sampras missed during his career, and it's the 1 title that eludes Federer right now. As for Nadal, he is still tough as he was when he first came into his talent in 2005. However, Rafael's health is of serious concern. His doctor back home in Spain said he was fine. Now, I find myself wondering if this doctor's credentials and opinions are valid. Roger's already the best, so i'd go ahead and give him that title of greatest ever. Nadal's stubborness and self-pride is putting his career in jeopardy. He'll never be No. 1 if things stay as is. Nadal needs a new game, new image, and 100% healthy knees.

Otherwise, Fed is best ever. I don't see anyone accomplishing what he's done.

Roger is the greatest player ever. He is also the humblest & nicest. My predictions for this year included Roger winning all 4 Grand Slams so by this summer all the critics will agree that Roger Federer the newly crowned champion of Roland Garros is the best player ever. Rafa Nadal is over doing it and not playing smart tennis or laying out his schedule wisely either. He is young, emotional, and is getting carried away with this mania of wanting to beat Roger. Rafa will not be #1 while Roger is around and from the looks of it - Rogers conditioning and high level of fitness, smart tournament scheduling and rest periods, concise strokes, and quickness to finish off points and end games and matches - Roger will be around after Rafa is long gone from career ending injuries. Roger is just 5 years older so look at Andre Agassi playing as long as he did. Roger is more talented and has better game and strokes than Andre so as long as he still wants to play he will. Rafa is tough but to say that he doesn't work out with weights I find puzzling. He is in good shape but is breaking down too early in his career so perhaps he doesn't weight train but should.

It's still too soon to crown Federer as the greatest ever, when he still trails Pete Sampras's grand slam total 14-12. Also, he has not won the French Open, so until he does that and/or breaks Sampras's grand slam record, I say it is premature to anoint Federer. As far as Nadal is concerned, he is probably the only player to have one three grand slams in three years and still not have been ranked #1. And the fact that he holds the edge head-to-head over Federer proves how good Nadal really is.

my 2 cents worth anyway ehhh...

this point has been debated over and over again...some for some against...

many say fedex cannot be called the greatest because he never won the french...because he still is behind sampras in grand slam scalps...

my question...then is that all? is that what is stopping this wonder of a player to be called the greatest tennis player so far?

forget about the french...forget bout the 14 grand slam mark...look at how fast he has achieved what he has achieved...look at his gameplay...look at his composure...

there are but a few players which are able to match fedex on court...power,placement,speed,movement, and most importantly the effortless-ness he makes it look...

and yes i agree with the question asker...rafa is a great player in his right...and would most probably be no.1, 3 years running...if not for fedex...rafa is tough...yes very tough...he has the biggest heart of a tennis player...however his method of play will take the toil on his body...the only thing saving him is his youth...

rafa also can be very erratic on court...he just got wiped by youzhny 6-0 6-2 in chennai...yeah he was tired from his battle with moya the previous day...but you dont see fedex getting cleaned on court as such

i do honestly think that many have already regarded fedex as the best there is, there best there was...i dont think fedex needs the world to recognize his talents...he has been giving it his all...every season, and been dominating tennis like NO ONE has ever done on the tour...

The only thing standing between Roger Federer and the title of "Greatest of All Time" is the French Open title. I dont think Roger can be called Greatest of All Time unless he wins the French Open.

Nadal is not as tough as people think he is.

His style of play just beats up his body so much, that he is destined for a short career. And keep this in mind: James Blake consistently beats Nadal. So RF should learn how to beat Nadal using Blake's style.

federer isnt the greatest... i think he has the best ground and net game in tennis today but there are many players with better serves.. and he hasnt won the french

roger is best