Roger Federer is not the greatest ever

For all his 15 Grand Slam titles from 20 final appearances, writes Steve Bierley in the Guardian, Roger Federer may forever find himself cursed by the Rafael Nadal question: namely that the Swiss player has never yet conquered his prime challenger in a Grand Slam final.

"It is always unwise to predict with any degree of certainty what is going to happen in sport in the long term," recognises Bierley, "particularly tennis which is open to sudden and dramatic shifts of fortune. This time last year, after Rafael Nadal had beaten Roger Federer in the greatest of all men's finals at Wimbledon, one of the questions being asked was whether the Swiss was a spent force."

And Federer "answered that promptly by winning the US Open and this year has added the French Open, for the first time, and a sixth Wimbledon title to break Pete Sampras's record of 14 majors. Even when not playing at his best, which has been the case for the past 18 months, Federer has lifted his game at crucial moments and clearly deserves all the plaudits coming his way."

But here comes the caveat: "All those five slam finals he has lost have been against Nadal, while the last three he has won have seen the Spaniard either absent, as at Wimbledon, or knocked out before the final. Nadal, almost five years younger than Federer, has won 13 of their 20 meetings; in slam finals he holds a 5–2 advantage, and in all finals leads 11–5. While not detracting from the achievements of the Swiss, these results might, with some justification, call into question whether he can really be deemed the greatest player of the modern era."

Still, concludes the Guardian's tennis correspondent, "tennis has been fortunate to have two such great players around at the same time, and it is to be hoped it stays that way for another couple of years at least. It might be harsh to suggest that to be truly deserving of the 'greatest ever' title (and many remain on Rod Laver's side) then Federer needs to beat Nadal a few more times in slam finals, but it remains an intriguing basis for an argument." ·