Reuters Blogs

Left field

The Reuters global sports blog

14:10 July 5th, 2009

Federer settles argument about Greatest of All Time

Posted by: Kevin Fylan
Tags: sports, , , , , , , , ,

 federer

Roger Federer’s epic five-set victory over Andy Roddick, heartbreaking for the American, has surely now settled the question of who is the Greatest of All Time.

That, at least, is the view of Pete Sampras, who was on hand to watch as Federer overtook him in the majors stakes with a 15-th grand slam title.

It was a monumental match and while the crowd revelled in Federer’s success I doubt there was anyone on Centre Court who did not feel sorry for Roddick, who played with such heart before eventually succumbing 16-14 in the fifth set.

Here’s what Sampras had to say:

“The guy’s a legend and now he’s an icon. He’s got 15 majors, that’s a lot of majors, that’s a lot of work. He’s a credit to the game. The critics say (Rod) Laver, and (Rafael) Nadal beat him a few times in majors, but he’s won all the majors, he’s going to win a few more here, so in my book he is (the greatest).”

And who could argue with that?

PHOTO: Roger Federer kisses the Wimbledon trophy after defeating Andy Roddick of the U.S. in their final in London, July 5, 2009. REUTERS/Stefan Wermuth

9 comments so far

Fed was helped by serving first in the last set so Roddick was always having to serve to save the match from 6-5 onwards. Roddick broke serve more times in the match…

- Posted by Mark

Roddick was serving first in the first set, second set and the fourth set. Federer got it first only in the third and then in the fifth. If at all Roddick was lucky serving first in three out of five sets.

Roddick broke Feds serve only twice. Federer broke Roddick once and won two tie breaks. So indeed the better player won.

- Posted by musing

Incredible & hope Roger Federer wins more majors.

- Prakash Gantori

- Posted by Prakash Gantori

Hey Mark, even if you break serve more times, as Roddick did, you can lose. You can also lose if you win more points than your opponent, and you can lose if you win more games than your opponent.
The ONLY thing that matters is if you win more sets than your opponent. That’s tennis.

- Posted by Glen Evan

Amazing we salute you!

- Posted by Daisy

It was an incredible match. It could have gone either way and as a true fan of tennis, I could not have asked for more. But, as a true Fedex fan, I was gunning for him to win and he did manage to hang in there and see of the improved Roddick. I am happy that Fedex won the final and got to 15th slam, but am equally happy to see Roddick trying to unleash his true potential. This means, we can see a lot better tennis from here on.

Congrats Roger and all the best.

- Posted by muralisk

Roddick played A great final and proved many people including my friends wrong that it would be a cake walk for Roger but still Wimbledon crown went to the deserving champion.Roddick was a part of an epic SW19 final and should be proud to be a part of such an historic event in tennis.
Hail Roger.

- Posted by Akshay

Federer is smug, dismissive of reality and his wearing of the 15 tracksuit so soon after the end of the match showed nothing but contempt for the far classier defeated finalist.

- Posted by Dan

[...] if there is even a debate about whether we can say Federer is the greatest player in tennis, how can we start to compare across [...]

- Posted by Is it fair to compare greats from different sports? - Posted In World Cup | Soccer News Info - Soccer News Info

Post Your Comment

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word

House Rules:
  • We moderate all comments and will publish everything that advances the post directly or with relevant tangential information
  • We try not to publish comments that we think are offensive or appear to pass you off as another person, and we will be conservative if comments may be considered libelous information.