Much can be said on how we define greatness, is it the flair to do things that others can only dream of? Is it the longevity to stay on top of your game for so long? Is it making the difficult things look so easy? Well if your answer to that question is all three, then step forward Roger Federer.
Since and including his win at Wimbledon 2003, Roger Federer has amassed a grand slam record of 141 wins to 10 defeats. This includes 13 grand slams, 5 finals and 3 Semi-Finals, a run of 19 consecutive Semi-Finals, a run of 5 consecutive Wimbledon Titles, 5 consecutive US Open Titles, and 3 years in which he won 3 grand slams.
You would read that previous paragraph and think why there is even a debate over this man’s legacy. There are two obvious gaps in his CV, the lack of a French Open title, and a lack of a winning record against his strongest rival, Rafael Nadal.
I dismiss the first reason with Pete Sampras, who continually under-achieved at Roland Garros, at a time where there weren’t any very dominant clay court players, yet he is seen as a great. The second reason is more valid, but still questionable. Nadal is 4 years younger than Federer. A typical sporting great would be happy to be on top of the game for 4 years and it would be expected for there to be a later challenge, it is the natural progression of the sport.
It may be that Tennis is quickly becoming a sport for the young, and late 20s is now deemed as over the hill. You just have to look at the likes of Hewitt, Ferrero, and Safin. All once very good players, but now, all under the age of 30 still, are deemed past it.
These are all minor points, to be deemed the greatest in any sport is subjective; you can only play your era, with the exception of some outstanding talents like Sir Donald Bradman, and the pole vaulting duo of Bubka and Isinbayeva, you could argue away over who was the greatest in many sports. To be considered great comes down to your ability and achievements, to be considered the greatest comes down to opinion.
