Allan Massie: Forget the who's best debate, let's sit back and enjoy watching Federer – a true tennis great

Published on Tuesday 9 June 2009 22:52

IN ONE of his "Ego" diaries James Agate tells of someone who asked a venerable St Andrews caddy whether Bobby Jones was a greater player than Young Tom Morris. The question was met with a stern frown and the reproof: "baith of them played pairfect gowf".

It's a fair response. Was Fred Trueman a greater fast bowler than Ray Lindwall or Dennis Lillee, or Michael Holding or Malcolm Marshall? Is Roger Federer the greatest tennis player of all time, as many, in the wake of his triumph at Roland Garros have been quick to assert?

How does he compare with those who like him have won all four of the Slam tournaments, even with some like Borg, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg and Sampras who didn't collect the full house?

Arguments about the merits of players of different generations are always enjoyable and always, if one is honest, inconclusive. Times change, conditions change. Modern greats like Federer and Nadal can do things with a tennis ball that their predecessors couldn't; but then they have the advantage of modern racquets. Their game would be different if they were using the old wooden racquets.

One of the odder assertions this past weekend came from Andre Agassi, the last man before Federer to win all the big four. He remarked that Federer would have already completed the Grand Slam if he hadn't run up against Rafael Nadal. So indeed he would, in all probability; but so what? There is always another player across the net, and sometimes he is a great one, like Nadal. You might as well say that Ken Rosewall would have won four Wimbledons if he hadn't run up against Jaroslav Drobny, Lew Hoad, John Newcombe and Jimmy Connors in the final. The remarkable thing about Rosewall's achievement is that the first of his defeats in the final came in 1954 and the last twenty years later in 1974.

Mention of Rosewall reminds one that the division between the amateur and the professional game which lasted till tennis went open in 1968 distorts records and makes comparison of players from different times still more difficult.

From the middle Thirties many champions turned professional when they had won one or more of the Slams. Sometimes they did so when very young, like Pancho Gonzales, Hoad and Rosewall, all still in their early twenties and short of their best when they were lost to Wimbledon, Roland Garros, Melbourne and Forest Hills (where the US championships were then held).

Throughout this period winners of these tournaments could almost never claim to be the best in the world. This was probably true even of Rod Laver when he won the first of his calendar year Grand Slams in 1962. It was certainly true of Roy Emerson, great player though he was, when he collected all four titles (though not in the same year). He wasn't up against the best, who were ineligible to compete.

One has to wonder how the record-books would look if tennis had gone open twenty years before it did. How many Slam titles would Gonzales, Hoad and Rosewall have won?

Rod Laver's 1969 Grand Slam has never been matched since, though Federer has come closer to doing so than anyone else in the Open era. He now has 14 Slams, the same as Pete Sampras, and has taken half as long as the great American to reach this total. He may well surpass him at Wimbledon next month.

Moreover, unlike all those, except Andre Agassi, who have won all the Big Four, he has done so on three different surfaces (the US and Australian Opens used to be played on grass).

But, again, just as players can't be asked to have done more than beat the best of their own time, it's absurd to suggest that the records of past champions are devalued because there was less variety of surfaces in their day.

Arguably indeed there may have been more variety in the Eighties and Nineties since the grass at Wimbledon is slower than it was then (and the balls used are heavier); this has seen the serve-volley game played by Becker, Edberg and Sampras almost disappear. Federer is a very fine volleyer himself, but he plays more long points from the back of the court than they did.

It would be fascinating to see him against Sampras at his best on the faster Centre Court of Sampras's heyday. Sadly this is like wishing one could have seen Denis Compton or Gary Sobers facing up to Shane Warne. Can't be done.

So we must content ourselves with the privilege of being able to watch one of the very greatest of tennis players in Roger Federer. But let's not forget Rafa Nadal. How many Slams may he win if his knees hold out? And then there is our own Andy Murray who may well be ranked with the greats in a few years time. Would he have beaten Fred Perry, the last British man to win Wimbledon? Who can tell?

There is however one thing at least to be said in support of the view that today's champions, Federer and Nadal are the best ever. The general standard of the game is much higher than it used to be. So there are fewer easy matches in the early rounds of a championship. This makes getting to the final and winning it a greater test of endurance than it was in earlier days. But then players themselves are probably fitter.

As for comparing Federer with Borg or McEnroe, or Laver, Hoad, Rosewall, Gonzales etc, we should probably agree that the old St Andrews caddy had it right. The very best of any time play their game perfectly. What more can we ask?