Federer: G.O.A.T. (as much as I hate to say it)...

So my dad, my brother, and I have been discussing whether Roger Federer is the greatest tennis player of all time. In light of his victory at the French Open today, it is only appropriate that we discuss whether he is, indeed, the greatest.

If the greatest of all time is purely quantitative, Federer has to be the best, since he does have the most grand slams of all (T-1 with Sampras), and to top it off, he finally got that elusive French. To be honest, even without the French, had he won another major to get to 14, I would still consider him better than Sampras due to his consistent excellence on clay, namely his getting to four French Open finals (even Sampras agrees). And this is coming from an avid Sampras fan. He has the excellence on grass, the will on hards, and the patience on clay. Sampras could never say that, as his best run at Roland Garros was the semis (and once, mind you.) God, this hurts saying all of this. (I'm going to ignore Laver for now since I was -20 years old when he played.)

There's still a bitter taste in my mouth though. How can the greatest of all time have a nemesis? If he does have a nemesis, should that not automatically eliminate any chance of his becoming the greatest of all time? Who knows. Rafa may actually become the greatest ever, and if that actually occurred, then there probably will not be any doubt, since he beats Federer on a consistent basis (now, even on Federer's good surfaces: grass and hards). But for now, if Federer isn't the greatest ever, then who actually is? Just by statistics, it has to be him. I guess I can live with that; he turns tennis into an art form.

Er...I really miss my 90s. Where are MJ and Sampras?