I pay minor attention to tennis only because of Nadal and Federer. Even if Federer wins I don't think he will be considered the greatest of all time for two reasons:
1) Against Nadal he has a losing record and has not beaten him at the French Open, he did beat him quite recently on clay before the French Open though. In order for him to be considered the greatest he has to from this point on dominate Nadal.
2) There is talk of another tennis player who is better than Federer and Sampras, I can't remember the name but the reason behind why is he could have won 20 majors if he had stayed amatuer but he decided to turn pro before the open era. I believe it is Rod Laver who has eleven majors.
For me Federer to be the greatest he needs to at leat get 16 or more majors and dominate Nadal inlcuding clay; the clay fielf can't be his weakness. If he wins another French Open against Nadal that will defnitely help Federer's cause.
Bookmarks