Will Wimbledon Determine Who is Greatest Ever?

Ah, the green, green grass of the All England Lawn Tennis Club. My home away from home. Wimbledon, England, and the championships are just around the corner. I can smell the blades of red fescue in my dreams. And the red, dirty clay of Roland Garros is now just a memory.

Immediately following the French Open final, the debate began in earnest again about Roger Federer being declared the best tennis player of all-time. Rafael Nadal managed to once again defeat his arch nemesis Roger and tie legendary Bjorn Borg with six French Open titles, the most in the modern era. Given this win, and the career record Nadal holds over Federer, the case could be made that the anointing of Roger is premature. I wonder, should Rafa win at Wimbledon, would that relegate Federer to just a great, and not the greatest?

Let's explore this further. Roger Federer, truly an all-time great, became known as "the greatest" after surpassing Pete Sampras as the male tennis player with the most major singles titles, known as the Grand Slam tournaments. Pete Sampras held the title for less than a decade with 14 total "slam titles" after surpassing the previous record holder, Roy Emerson's 12. Federer dominated on all surfaces, and his generally young age still means that Federer can add to that number. He almost did a week ago at the French Open. Early on, it looked like Federer was going to take the first set easily and be on a course for a classic win. That, of course, turned out not the be the case.

With Federer playing at the level he did at the French, and being on his favorite surface, grass, Federer is odds on to win another big title. That would clearly put him in the pantheon of immortals. Or would it?

Trying to determine who is the greatest of all-time in men's tennis is complicated. Since all we have are statistics and career records to go by, it would seem that Roger currently is the greatest. I disagree. If you want to really look at this, you have to go back through the history of tennis and not forget about the players prior to the Open era of the sport. A history lesson is appropriate here.

Prior to Open tennis, the game was broken up into amateur and professional tours. The Wimbledon, Australian, French, and U.S. championships were confined to amateurs. So that meant if you were a professional, you were banned from playing in the tournament. That is actually how the term "Open" actually came to be. When the agreements were reached with all the major tournaments to "open up" to professionals as well as amateurs, you got "Open" tennis. The first truly open major tournament was the U.S. Open, played in 1968 and won by then-amateur Arthur Ashe.

What this division meant was that from the early 1930s until 1968, the best of the players, at their personal and professional peaks, did not compete for the major championships at Wimbledon, Australia, France, or the U.S. It also meant that in order to actually make a living at tennis, you had to take your major wins and turn pro. Many of the all-time greatest players probably would have wildly different records had there been Open tennis for the entire century.

It has been argued that the late Pancho Gonzalez may have been the greatest player ever. I only saw Pancho playing at the old age of 41, but his legendary and until last year record match against Charlie Pasarell at Wimbledon in 1969 at that age makes the case that he may have been had he not turned pro immediately after winning his second U.S. championship in 1949. I have to leave him out, though, because while he was dominant for nearly two decades on the professional tour, it is hard to compare his overall career record.

Now, the name not heard much anymore is William Tatem Tilden, or "Big Bill" Tilden. Star of the roaring '20s, often held in similar stratospheres as his contemporaries Babe Ruth and Bobby Jones, could be the greatest ever. His .938 career match winning percentage at all matches and tournaments has never been matched. His seven career U.S. championships, nine consecutive U.S. championship finals appearances, and his 10 overall final appearances is a record that has yet to be matched. Also, given that in that day there were really only two tournaments that counted, that being the U.S. and Wimbledon, it makes the feat even more interesting.

The Australian Championships, or Australian Open as it is known now, was a major tournament, however, the only way to reach it was by a month-long ocean liner voyage. There were many Australians who would make the reverse trip, that from Australia to England, but that was the normal course of the day as wealthier English had winter residences and businesses down under. To travel to Australia to play in an amateur tennis tournament was virtually unheard of at that time.

The French Open was closed to only French residents until 1925. Tilden himself only made the ocean voyage to Europe to play six times, in 1920, 1921, and 1927-1930. Tilden won Wimbledon in both 1920 and 1921 and then again in his last appearance in 1930. Given that, Tilden won essentially every major championship he competed in defeating every great player of his day. If you add the four professional tournament wins he had following his amateur career, it could be argued that Tilden had 14 major tournament wins. Total that, a .938 winning percentage at those tournaments, the fact that there were only two tournaments that counted toward the record, the problems with travel and the medical dangers of the time (Tilden actually lost half of a finger due to a fence scratch to gangrene during his career), his accomplishments seem to add up to that.

However, times were different and hard to compare. So while in the list of tennis immortals, I would not quite put him there. I would put him ahead of Federer, Nadal, and several others, though.

Roger Federer has clearly has been the king of tennis in the 21st century. I have a hard time remembering a tournament he hasn't been on my television competing in. His record of accomplishment is great, and he has won what has become known as the career grand slam, that of winning all four of the majors at one time in his career. That alone is an amazing accomplishment, as only six men in tennis history have done so. The beauty of tennis is that it is competed on different surfaces (clay, grass, and hard court) and the ability to win on each surface takes completely different skills and a true mastery of the sport. No other sport does the same.

Even given that, I cannot give the throne to Federer yet. What is also missing is the longevity factor. Yes, tennis players today play a lot more matches then were played in years past, and their bodies tend to break down with that increased tempo. I temper that with the knowledge that today players have entourages to train them, feed them, nurse them, and pamper them. Travel is by plane, not boat. Most of the illnesses of the past that would kill you today are cured with a vaccine or there are treatments for them. To last a career into your older years was probably harder even in the 1960s, let alone in the 1920s.

So, given my lengthy history lesson, Roger Federer is still not the greatest of all-time. That title still has to go to Rod Laver. Laver has a career record you can compare with some similarity, and he did play a portion of his career in the Open era. Laver was an amateur until 1963, and in 1962 became only the second player in history to capture what is known as the "Grand Slam," winning the Australian, Wimbledon, French, and U.S. Championships all in the same year. He spent six years in the professional ranks, winning eight major professional titles. Then the Open era began, and he won a total of five additional majors, including his second in 1969 and only the third Grand Slam in men's tennis history.

Laver is the only man in the modern era of tennis to do so to this day. He completed it at the age of 31. His 11 total major titles and eight professional titles would put him at 19 major titles, still several ahead of Roger Federer today. His two Grand Slams alone put him far above Federer and any other champion past and present. I'm not even counting his doubles titles and the fact that unlike Federer and all of the recent greats, Laver and the previous champions all competed in doubles and mixed doubles, as well.

Roy Emerson was a great player. Emerson, however, was a far cry from any of his Australian contemporaries Ken Rosewall, Lew Hoad, and Rod Laver. Emerson never had to face Hoad or Rosewall in a major tournament at their primes, and while early on he had two wins over Laver at majors, the bulk of his major title wins came in Australia. Emerson held the record of Grand Slam title wins at 12 until Sampras, but clearly that was more due to his decision to not turn pro until Open tennis than his ability to dominate any of his peers or the all-time greats. I think this one fact puts the statistic of Grand Slam tournament singles titles as the benchmark for greatness in question. Had tennis been open from the beginning, Emerson clearly would never have had the record he did, and Laver, Rosewall, and Gonzalez might have 20 major titles each.

Is Federer, or even Nadal, the greatest of all-time? History will have to tell, but as the game of tennis has evolved like other professional sports, the ability to truly categorize it has diminished. Tennis stars rarely if ever play major tournaments in singles, doubles, and mixed doubles, meaning they play a much smaller amount of matches and physically don't have to compete as hard. Players today have the advantage of technology in everything they use. Racquets are made of composites and more consistent. The clay, grass, and hard courts are so technologically groomed that the unpredictability of playing on the different surfaces has dissipated. The rules have changed to accommodate television, shortening sets and matches at many major tournaments.

If Federer manages to win at Wimbledon, I think he will get closer to the title of all =-time greatest. And just like the poem that adorns the hallowed grounds, "If..."