Is Roger Federer "the greatest of all time"?

If you ask me or John McEnroe, the answer is a resounding yes. So it depends whom you ask. Whether you ask some of those Federer haters or ask those who shudder at phrases such as Greatest of all time and those who has some other standards in their mind only their hallucinations can reach.

(*) Made to the finals in 15 of the last 16 Grand slam events at the age of 27. Let's compare to Pistol Pete or Rocket Rod. B T W, I don't like these comparisons but Pete won his last slam in 2002 at Flushing meadows when he was 31. Laver, did not retire until 1979 but does not have a champion ship after 1969. Just shows how much Roger dominated the game in 5 years.

(*) Made 20 of the last 20 Grand slam semi finals. Laver, Lendil made 10 or 11??

(*) Pete Sampras, the closest contemporary of the greatest of all time nominees did not get to the french open finals once. To get there 4 times in a row for some one who is known as a grass/hard court player is unbelievable. I feel that Roger's game on clay appeared diminished to his grass/hard court game only because of Rafa. Look at how Roddick, Hewitt, Safin (all former number 1's) did at the French open.

(*) During Laver's time, 3 of the 4 slams, except Roland Garros used to be on the grass. Roger showed his dominance on all three surfaces.

(*) People who have been called the greatest of all time have said Roger Federer is the greatest. Bjorn Borg, Laver, the man himself and Pete Sampras have all said so. Do you think these guys are nuts to call some one else greatest player of all time?

(*) Laver accomplished a calender career slam in 1969, but if I argue that Laver did not had the competition Roger had in the form of Rafa on clay, it would be as foolish as the argument that Roger did not have the competition other than Rafa and hence is not the greatest player of all time. What if's do not have a place in history.

(*) Rafa is a great player but the reason why he thrives against Federer is he has strategic advantages and he generates the top spin and forces Roger to use his single handed backhand. If Roger were so weak in those areas, many other players would have exploited and pushed off Roger. Rafa does this best and Rafa is fearless. Roger, how ever, is an emotional boy (Yeah! You gotta look at him when he cries)

(*) It does not matter whether Roger defeated Rafa in the french open final. He defeated the same guy who defeated Rafa. Apply the rule of transitivity. You have your answer. Of course, I would have loved that.

(*) I believe there is more to come from Federer. Pete was 31 when he got his 14th and it was 2 years after his penultimate slam. Great players go through a period of hiatus and evolve to the new players and generation and win. Federer has not gone into any sort of hiatus yet.

You like it or not Roger is the king! Greatest of all time so far!