Does Federer have to beat Rafa in his prime at Roland Garros to be the best ever?
 

i think Roger has done most things now - he has won as much money and glory out of the game as he could ever need or use.

He has shown proven himself as the greatest player of his generation

He is capable of playing shots again and again which only exist in the imagination of 99.9% of professional players who have ever been in the sport.

I think, health permitting, the all time grandslam record is there for the taking for him if he wants to play on and take it.

But to be the best ever, it is my opinion that he needs to beat Nadal in France.

It isnt straightforward: Agassi won all 4, and no serious fan would say Agassi was at the same level as Roger - and we know Andre would have been dismissed by Nadal on the clay... but all sports are defined by the great occasions, and Roger has only won three of the four. Agassi won all 4.

I think Federer plays the game at a level no other player has reached before, but taking into account the changes in equipment, the devlopment of the game: he needs the French to take the next step to place in himself in a different league to anyone else who has ever played the game- and he needs it against Rafa (who is himself a master and one of the all time greats already) - imo anyway.

I don't think so.

He's already in that Tiger Woods realm. If Federer loses, it's not a question of how well the other person played, it's "what did he do wrong?"

He's going to win at RG sooner or later, and it really doesn't matter who its against. Nobody will remember the win as the one that put him over that point, just a matter of crossing the t's and dotting the i's in a book that's already been written.

Except against Nadal in France. Which is, I think, Strange Famous' point. I don't know if he needs to do it to be the best ever, put any other 'best ever' contender against Nadal at RG and ask if they could do it? I have no idea.

It would seem that the question is: "Do you have to be the best ever on every surface, to be the best ever?" In a technical sense, I suppose no. But to achieve truly legendary status, not just amongst tennis fans but to the world as a whole, I think he does. And the way things are now, I think he'll have to do it more than once to really get beyond 'fluke' status.

I don't think he needs to beat Nadal specifically - Nadal may well be the best clay court player of all time and it's just a bit of bad luck (for both of them really) that they've both shown up at the same time as neither has a lot of luck against the other on the different surfaces.

I'm sorry SF, but very few if any at all, tennis players, stack up to the talent in the 70's and early 80's.

Connors, McEnroe, Borg, Nastase, Ashe, Lendl. Anyone of those in their prime taking on todays players, including Federer would crush them. The field and talent pool were far deeper back then, so it made the accomplishments of winning even more spectacular. Today, the talent isn't there.

It's like any sport, the deeper the talent pool, the easier you can ask.... hmmm is he the best ever? Today in tennis...... that question cannot be asked in any way shape or form in todays tennis world, because the talent is non existent.

Does Federer see a Lendl in the quarters, then a Mcenroe in the semis and face a Borg in the finals? NOPE. Not even close.

yes he does...you can't be the best ever if you can't win on every surface.

apparently not. it was a slaughterhouse!

lendl won on every surface but wimbeldon. i still think he came close to being the best ever at acertan period. the start of the end for him was losing to pat cash in 87 wimbeldon.

this is demorilizing for federer and i dont think he'll beat nadal in france on clay.

pan you forgot edberg and becker era towards mid to late lendl career

Good point with Stefan and Boris. I think they were just as the peak was reached. I lost interest about midway through the 90's Sampras and Agassi were good and a few others but there weren't any true "great matchups". It wasn't like waking up on Wimbolden Sunday or US Open Sunday to watch Connors/McEnroe/Borg/ and so on. They had fun, played hard and I was glued to every point. To every McEnroe outburst, to Connors being the original brat, to the sheer elegance that was Borg. That was tennis. Lendl's methodical wear you opponent down play.

None of that exists today. It's not fun to watch anymore. It's just "tennis" now. Shame really, such a great sport that peaked and never recovered.

But then again, it culd just be there aren't any USA players to root for.

Even the women's with Evonne Goolagong, Navritlova, Evert, Tracy Austin, that was fun. They went farther with Seles, but once she was stabbed women's tennis declined.

I think that is the case for American viewers - just because one or two players are dominant does not mean that the players of yesterday were any better. I think even Connors (although it might have been McEnroe, I forget) admitted he'd get squashed by the likes of Nadal or Federer - the game is evolved, it is different.

Lendl and Connor I wouldnt even place in the same league as Federer. You could make an argument maybe for Borg.

Tennis is so hard to judge across periods because of the differences in equipment though.

If you hit the ball on the forehand like Rafa Nadal does it would break your arm.

===========

Edit

Seriously, do you think McEnroe could take even a set of Federer at Wimbledon, in his prime, any time in thel ast 3 years?

Could Lendl have taken the French Open in a final against Nadal?