Roger Federer - the Greatest Tennis Player Ever

Andy Roddick's Best Tennis Resulted in a Straight Set Loss

Chad Parsons
Roger Federer simply wins. It isn't with the flair of a John McEnroe, the dynamic serving of a Pete Sampras or with the love of the crowd like an Andre Agassi, but he wins. Federer is the most balanced, consistent player we have seen in tennis and there isn't a clear-cut choice for the player to eventually knock him off the mountain. That's because it's his mountain. Injury and age are the best defense for Federer at this point. People will say Rafael Nadal can beat Federer. Nadal can, but you have to add little stipulations like "on clay" or "when Nadal is on the top of his game physically and mentally." Federer wins without his best stuff on any surface. Obviously there is a lot of danger for any top player at the French Open, but that's generally a more wide open tournament anyway.

To understand Roger's greatness, you really have to look at his records and results. 2003 really started the transition to a special echelon of player for Federer. He won 7 titles, amassing a 72-15 record over the year. The rest of the tennis world was in trouble starting in 2004. Federer proceeded to go 70-5 (11 titles), 80-4 (11 titles) and 90-5 (12 titles) in the following three seasons. Coming into the U.S. Open in 2007, Federer has a 50-6 singles record with 5 titles. Federer is one of only 4 men ever to win a Grand Slam event without dropping a set (2007 Australian Open). He's been at #1 for 187 straight weeks (as of August 27th, 2007), also a record. Other records include: longest winning streak on hard courts (56), most consecutive finals won (24), played the most consecutive Grand Slam finals (9), first male to win 10+ titles/year for 3 straight years and the only person to win Wimbledon and the U.S. Open in the same season 3 straight years.

Federer also has the record for the most consecutive matches won with 35. His 75.8% winning percentage in tournament finals are the best in tennis history - Sampras is second at 72.7%. Including 2007's titles, Roger has 50 championships to his name, which is already 9th on the all-time list. 64 titles is 4th, which is within reach in the next couple years. In the most important category, Federer already has 11 grand slam titles - earning third place behind Roy Emerson's 12 and Pete Sampras' 14. Barring injury, Federer will shatter that record, possibly breaking it in 2008.

Federer wins without pizazz, without the big serve and volley and without huge, boisterous winners point after point. He wins with a machine-like consistency, out-thinking and performing his opponents day-in and day-out. Andy Roddick, considered one of the best players in the world not named Roger, has run into that frustration, posting a 1-14 mark against "the machine," including a straight set lose in the 2007 U.S. Open.

Published by Chad Parsons

I am a fantasy football junkie that lives and breathes statistics and strategy about the game. Follow me on twitter @nfl_fantasy1 for tons of fantasy football information everyday.   View profile

3 Comments

Post a Comment
  • Abdul 9/12/2007

    What do you mean he doesn't win with flair?!? Have you actually seen him play... He is a genius, the greatest shot maker and the most naturally talented in the history of all tennis - the demolition of Hewitt and Roddick in the AUS and US open final respectively come to mind.

  • chandy 9/7/2007

    ^ "Most importantly, he has not won the French Open on clay."


    Sampras never won the French Open either. Yet he is considered by many to be the GOAT.


    The rest of your points are all valid though.

  • Rob Ormsby 9/6/2007

    I agree that Federer is a fantastic player (he is my favourite) and arguably the "best ever" but it is a tad too early to say Federer is the best ever in tennis history. Most importantly, he has not won the French Open on clay. Also, we tend to think of only current players - who we have seen play - as the "greatest" and not those of the past such as Rod Laver, who won the Grand Slam twice. One other factor needs mention: the modern racquets allow even teenage players to hit winners from all over the court; this was simply not possible with the smaller, wooden racquets used in the past. Modern players, thus, seem to be able to do more with a tennis ball than players from the past.

Displaying Comments

To comment, please sign in to your Yahoo! account, or sign up for a new account.