Co-sign on every level.

And yeah, Federer has his eye on London 2012. He's said as much as recently as this past week.

Why should he retire? He used his less demanding clay warmup performances this year to arrive early in Madrid and get in his best fighting shape in the last 2 years. He's now wielding weapons (drop shot in particular) he wasn't before. There's no reason he couldn't win quite a few more slams, um majors, or who knows, grand slams.

Federer will now be able to play a great deal more freely for the rest of his career -- especially if he wins Wimbledon this year. Or even the US Open should he somehow not deliver as the favorite at All England. Or even both.

Today was all about the truly momentous occasion and the ceremony. Federer played great. But the match was a "yoke." Soderling is in the history books twice now, but he's no champ and I don't know if he's even top 10 material.

And the Roland Garros crowd gets an A for effort and D- to F for behavior and grace this year, sealed with a court-storming clown. Chanting a player's name during changeovers from start to finish at a major is so gauche. They did their all to make it French Idol instead of the French Open this year.

Congrats to Snicks and Jake especially -- enjoy the Sunday. You have to believe it's getting better all the time for Federer. I always wanted him to have to fight for this moment, and the walkover today only throws more light on what he's had to get over the last couple of years and past year (and even past week) in particular. He's done it his way.

We didn't have to wait long to find out what Federer really thinks about how winning the French Open relates to his own idea of considering himself as the greatest ever. He reminds us that he fully believes he is in this quote below, despite his pseudo-gratuitousness of slight doubt clearly evident:

"Now the question is: Am I the greatest of all time?" Federer said. "We don't know, but I definitely have many things going for me because I've finally won all four Grand Slams, and I'm particularly happy reaching Pete's 14."

Does Federer get it that this whole GOAT debate is a subjective parlor-game speculation?? There's no objective criteria for determining such a thing. That he takes this notion seriously, or even ponders this question aloud about himself, is just stunning hubris. And it tells us all we need to know about him. To be proud of having won something you've tried to win and failed is one thing. He should bask in his accomplishment as happily and deeply as he can. But to use the occasion of winning today so as to start underscoring your own sense of historical grandeur minutes after the match is over tells us he really thought of himself as the GOAT all along, and thought so seriously. Honestly - who even poses themselves a question like that? Or if posed to him, why even try to answer it, or why answer it in the way he did? It's clear Federer thinks this GOAT stuff is not only objectively determinable, but that he's it. To take on this notion literally is pure conceit.

What he's done is terrific - but it's not unprecedented. He's not the first to win a career Grand Slam. But since in his quote he's using that as a criteria for him to consider himself the GOAT you'd think he believes he's the ONLY one to have done it. If a career slam is worthy criteria for Federer to contemplate his own GOAT-ness, then you'd have to conclude, by Federer's own criteria, Laver is unequivocally the GOAT. After all, he won two Calendar Slams seven years apart. Laver was also denied entry into Majors for 5 years, from 1963-1967. Unlike Federer, Laver was barred from playing in 20 Majors during that time because he turned pro in 1963. Since three of four majors were played on grass then, Laver's best surface, there' virtually no doubt Sampras and Federer would never have been able to approach the tally of Majors "The Rocket" would have accumulated. Laver might have also added another Calendar Slam in that 5 year exile, which would have given him three. Neither of the other two managed even one, let alone two.

Most remarkable about Laver and Sampras is that, unlike Federer, never once did they make such public pronouncements about whether they thought they were the best ever to pick up a racquet, despite their tremendous achievements. They both agree there is no such thing as a GOAT tennis player. The most you can do is dominate your era. Federer clearly did that for 4 years. But unlike Sampras - who had winning H2H's against his most serious rivals (Agassi, Courier, Chang, Becker and Rafter), Federer is owned by two of his contemporaries (Nadal and Murrray). This statement by Federer, suggesting that his win today is what we should use to consider (as he does) as the basis of his GOAT-ness tells me I was pretty close to right about his inner monologue. This is one narcissistic, self-adoring human being. Wouldn't surprise me if he really was on the phone now commissioning those statues of himself for placement around the world.

SNicks- was that you?

Are you in custody? Did you just get excited two sets too soon?

GREATEST OF ALL TIME to moi!!!!! Its not just the number he has amassed, but also the other records of #1...20 straight grand slam semifinals. He's just always there at the biggest stages of the grand slams no matter how he's fallen off some the past couple of years. He never had a loss at his peak the way Nadal did. And he's not even at his peak anymore. A subjective argument? Absolutely. But one in which by the end of the Federer bio, there will be no doubt.

I'm no Federer fan but I think I've got to give it up to him too. I think he's kind of a douchey twatwffle but in terms of tennis history it's him or Laver as the GOAT. A case could be made against either. With Laver you have the "what if" of him not being able to play the Slams for several years. With Roger you have the notion that maybe he doesn't have the toughest competition and his one and only rival has a winning record against him. It would have great to have had Federer playing when Sapras and Agassi were at their primes...it could have been like the Borg-McEnroe-Connors era. But obviously we'll never know.

The GOAT makes for great barstool debate but it's one of those things you can't really determine.

we can't forget though that when Laver won his first Grand Slam, he didn't have to face Gonzales or Rosewall. Nor that he benefitted from not having to play much on hard courts, which take their toll on a body.

It's hilarious to me that vm can criticize Roger for addressing the only question that is on everybody's mind. The fact that he has backed it up, doing pretty much everything that has been asked of him, is absolutely remarkable. Do you really think he was unaware of the fact that he was standing on the same stage with another career slammer? Or that he doesn't know EXACTLY what his hero, Laver, accomplished? Come on! Muhammad Ali's hubris made him no less a champion. Roger is a nice guy, an intriguing mix of humble and vain, and an awesome champion.

Yes the competition, or lack thereof issue is going to be there for Fed detractors. I mean Fed won his last two slams against Andy Murray (first slam final) and Soderling (first slam final). Nadal has had to win his past 3 French Opens, Wimbledon title, and Australian Open title...5 of his 6 against one who I am calling the best ever. So sure that argument is there.

Tiger Woods is suffering the same kind of talk now in that the competition that Tiger faces now pales in comparison to what Jack Nicklaus faced back in the day. Many intangibles but things like that can't be controlled by Federer. He shows up at slams and has to win seven matches regardless of who is in his draw. Does he win this year with a healthy Nadal? No. Did his chances get even better with Djokovic going out? Yes. But he was 5 points from losing to Tommy Haas. Today was his easiest match of the tournament and for the times I rail on him for his mental toughness, once Nadal went out and all the spotlight fell on him, I must say that he came through with great strength. Definitely was thinking about it. Definitely some shaky moments and probably the worst overall performances he's put in round to round at a grand slam in awhile but he got it done.

Looking back...seems as though there may have been a reason for Fed to lose that Australian Open final to Nadal. Now, he ties Sampras by winning the championship that eluded Pete throughout his illustrious career. Added to the drama of the storylines.

I see it as a mark against Nadal that his major victories have come against Murray, Soderling, Gonzo, and Djokovic rather than Nadal, Nadal, Nadal, and Nadal. Yes Rafa was a legit #2 for years but it was hardly Federer's fault that those other dudes beat Nadal. Can Rafa ever be considered the GOAT with so many bad losses in his prime?

Fed has tied Pete for number of slams, but won the big one on clay. I'll always prefer Pete's humble personality to the Fed's sore-losing, self-important and self-aggrandizing Tammy-Faye-Fedvotna drama-queen-ness, but this can't be taken away from him. No asterisks, no "what-if's"...he did it. It's not his fault that Nadal and Djokovic went away early, and that Soderling played out of his head to get there, just to feel the normal butterflies one feels in their first slam final. None of that takes away from his accomplishment.

Pete snarled at some reporter for something near the end of his career (I can't remember exactly what it was...maybe something about his serve and rest of his game being boring because of it) and he said something like (paraphrased) "look at the number of weeks I've been #1 and the number of SLAMS I've won. That won't be done again anytime soon." While he's been at #1 more weeks than the Fed and for more year's ends, the Fed DID win as many slams as he did, had more consecutive weeks at #1, and did it all in less than a decade after Pete left the game...and won the big clay event where Pete only reached the semis once. Interesting that Karma comes 'round pretty quickly on some of these things. As much as I love Pete, I always wished he had stuck with his more humble persona instead of making that comment, but after years of being called boring and blah, I guess anyone would snap after doing so well and yet being criticized for it.

Fed isn't the only arguable GOAT to be so self-adoring. Martina Navritilova was on a talk show as recently as three years ago and when asked, outright said she was the WTA GOAT despite Margaret Court and Steffi Graf having more SLAMS and/or weeks at #1 and/or tournament wins than her, and Chris Evert being tied with her in SLLLLLAAAAAAMMMMSSS. I can't remember how she justified it, but she gave it a shot. (Anyone else remember this sports talk show and this interview? I know they had Chris Evert on it too, around the same time, and I know we all talked about it around here, but it's eluding me for some reason...)

While I have more admiration for Martina than the Fed, this isn't the most humble nor gracious kind of talk from a champion. I remember when Steffi Graf was bludgeoned with the question during her career, "Do you think you'll go down as GOAT?", she always would answer saying "that's not for me to decide, that's up to the historians to argue over." As much as I'll always love Steffi Graf, there are some asterisks near some of her wins because of the horrible and horribly unfair thing that happened to Monica Seles....but still...even if she had just 18 SLAMS like Evert and Navratilova, this is the kind of endearing humility I'd much rather see from a GOAT candidate.

Thats a good point bridgeport.

It's the fact the he answered this question seriously in regard to a subject that's totally arbitrary. It illustrates just how much he's consumed with himself. His answer demonstrates he wants to be considered as such. He thinks this GOAT argument the is the equivalent of a beauty pageant, and there are pre-selected judges ordained to actually place this GOAT "crown" on his head once these judges get through scoring him. And this response shows he buys into this nonsense hook, line and sinker. Not only buys into it, but is now actively helping to promote it!! He's pure narcissism, plain and simple. The same narcissism at the root of his Tammy Faye Tears in Australia, bawling like some aging diva whose face lift fell overnight. As I said then, his tears screamed "Poor Me!!". So he might be the nice guy you say he is. At least when he wins. When he loses, he cries. You see a lot of those kinda tears in Junior Girls Tennis.

And let's be honest: this whole Federer-as-GOAT PR campaign was started, fueled and escalated mostly by The Brothers McEnroe from their lofty perches of network broadcasting. And done so specifically: it's no secret that Sampras had no use for PMac, and despises John McEnroe. The Brothers use "Federer-as-GOAT" as a vehicle to goad Sampras, someone they know hates their guts. And in a true measure of how absurd this has all become, Johnny Mac even issued a warning to the world that we'd "better not" asterisk this triumph simply because Nadal wasn't on the other side of the net. Sometimes it's a tossup as to who has the bigger ego: McEnroe or Federer.

And Jake - if you think Nadal's claim to any such ridiculous status is suspect, let's remember that in Nadal's 6 Major Championships won he's had to take out Federer, this GOAT toast of the blog world, in every single one of them. Federer has only beaten Nadal in a Major on grass, whereas Nadal has taken Federer out in a Major on all three surfaces. So if Federer is the "GOAT", then Nadal looks even better by comparison. Throw in that Murray owns Federer having won 6 of their 8 matches over two years, and it's not long before any real logic in this GOAT nonsense unravels fairly easily.

what a cool idea! In fact, I think i'll make a contribution to the statue fund ... in your name, of course, VM.

and might i recommend some Pepto-Bismol? to remove the bitterness you're tasting right now.

I spent today the usual way i spend every day that Roger is competing in a major final. I DVR'd the match, didn't watch it live, but followed it online, peeking through my fingers.

When he got to championship point, i turned to NBC to see the history-making moment. I just now finished actually watching the match. Roger winning today is good, not only for him, but for men's tennis.

So many possibilities from now on. Will this invigorate him? Will he beat Pete's record this year? What about Rafael? If Rafael can somehow manage to win the U.S. Open, that will be two guys completing the career slam this year. and what of the rest of the field? Can Murray survive the pressure of Wimbledon? Will Roddick continue his resurgence?

And what the F happened to the Serbs this year?

oh, and one more thing ..

CONGRATULATIONS MY FEDERBEAR!!!

*Edit - oh dear, VM, I'm just reading the rest of your hissy fits. calm down, dude. You're gonna pop a blood vessel.

I agree with most everyone here and Snicks's Federbear, if that's at all possible.

The only * I'd append to my agreement with Jake's excellent post is 'best *male* player of the open era.' It took Tennis Guy talking about the still-lively topic of Martina's prodigous ego to remind me.

Of course Federer is going to say something like that. What difference does it make? To do it in that Queen-from-Snow White manner only shows how deeply he has felt about it all. It hasn't been a picnic for him, having to live up to the hype. He has, unless you want to be an unreasonable prosecutor.

I don't get why some (not all) Federer fans have to use him to put down Nadal, or why some (not all) Nadal fans get so aggrieved about Federer's achievements. Especially as their careers are hopefully far from over. It's petty. I'm also old enough to know that the person you're rooting for in a grand rivalry might not be the one you prefer many years after it. Or that those kinds of allegiances can blur into an appreciation of the players and the sport.

I prefer Rafa but just want him to play and have a full career, so shoot me. If not, spare me the vindictive happy dances when he has an injury. Likewise, why turn what happened today into a discussion of the presser? It comes off petty and makes it seem like beating Federer is why someone likes Nadal. No one is going to be touching Federer's achievements anytime soon.

But now we've got inferences that Federer's Australian loss was for a reason, the 'loss at a peak' remark and all the tacky petty BS that comes from using one's "love" of a top player for an ego boost and as a battle axe. (Terp, Federer also never went into a major undefeated and stayed that way for years on end. Does any of this matter? No.)

It's interesting, I guess, what victory and defeat does to people on the grand stage, and everyone watching.

That's strange. I hear and/or read the same kind of comments from Federer and I don't think arrogant, self-absorbed diva at all. He always comes across as almost like a scholar of tennis to me, who is aware of tennis history and his own place in it and speaks about it in a clinical, objective way.

But regardless of either of our opinions, the person you have just described should be disliked by the majority of his peers. That, however, does not seem to be the case at all. In fact it seemed like everybody is rooting for him including his opponents. Robin didn't look all that upset that a preening, annoying narcissist like Federer got the best of him. Heck, he even said Federer gave him a tennis lesson today. Yet when it's someone like Nadal, who he doesn't seem to care for, Robin gets fired up to play his best agaist him. You mention that Tammy Faye tears from the Australian Open, yet Nadal has never indicated that he was upset at Federer for doing it. He genuinely felt bad that Federer lost even though it was the only way for him to win. I think if Federer truly came off as a petulant spoiled brat, word would have trickled out from the Nadal camp that Federer's behavior was not appreciated. Andy Roddick, who is not afraid to mince words, has his butt owned by Federer. Surely, he is in a position to see the arrogant, ego-maniac Federer for what he is -- he certainly didn't take to kindly to Monfils' self-aggrandizing actions in the quarterfinals. Yet, when the knives started to come out last year saying that Federer was basically done, even after Roddick claimed his second career victory over Roger last year, he vocally defended Roger. I feel like Roger is perhaps one of the most popular guys in the locker room, which belies the claim that he is a willful, self-absorbed diva.

Thank you for saying what I have been thinking. I find both Federer and Nadal quite classy on and off court. Only two other men have won the Grand Slams in the past 5 years besides them- and both are genuinely well-liked by their peers. Both are future Hall of Famers.

The self-absorbed narcissist also took time to stay on court and take pictures with the children... when he won a Junior title before, he remembered how nice it was for him to meet the pro-winner of the tournament.. so he always makes it a point to spend time with the junior winners...

I just think it is bad that he is being demonized... anyone who does should truly watch him tearing up at the end of this match... tearing up with joy after winning doubles at the Olympics.... Something that was considered well beneath other great champions to even consider.....

ALL 14

Okay, so I'm happy for Federer, although I am not the biggest Fed fan, but I think any discussion of the GOAT is impossible to settle. Federer and Nadal have been heads-and-shoulders above the rest of their competition for so long, although that is changing now, that their rivalry and the era of tennis is has created is utterly unique. Should we take anything away from Federer because Nadal had his number on clay for so many years, or should we simply be amazed that a great player was so perfectly matched by a rival for so long? The other great rivalries, maybe with the exception of Connors/MacEnroe, typically had a clearly better player (Sampras over Agassi or Courier, Borg over most everyone until Mac came along) with a rival who would sometimes, but not consistently, create a real challenge.

Whatever the outcome of that debate, though, no one can argue that this was one of the worst weekends of tennis ever seen. First we have Safina nearly breaking down and barely putting up a fight in the Women's final, then Soderling apparently forgot he had to play yesterday. I swear I have never been as uninterested in a final match as this one - but only after it started. I was excited to see if a late-blooming breakout could challenge a great player just a bit past his prime (no insult to Federer, but he is not the dominant player he once was - which is actually when such player's careers get interesting), or if that great player would be overwhelmed with the potential of reaching a lifelong goal. Instead we got a practice session that would not even have been televised had the match been in the first week.

Congratulations to Roger! He's the most elegant, fun-to-watch champion since, well, you know who.

Speaking of which, it was on this same day 23 years ago (June 7th, 1986) that Chris Evert won her record-setting seventh French Open and her eighteenth Grand Slam title.

Please bear with me and take a moment to remember:



I've missed this board and the lively conversation. Love the spit-inducing photo of Svetlana, the inane criticism of our use of "Grand Slam" and the passionate opinions!

What I find so interesting about Roger's run (and some of the commentators have alluded to this) is the use of the drop shot on the clay courts this season. It wasn't that long ago that Roger felt sort of ABOVE the drop shot as if he thought that if he was playing well enough, he shouldn't have to use it to win. But boy, he's changed his tune and uses that shot more effectively than any player I've ever seen. He almost never misses it and if he loses the point, it's because the opponent came up with something pretty good. When it's a winnner, it's a thing of beauty. Just another example of his incredible understanding of the game.

Never too much to remember Chris, particularly at French Open time. Thanks for sharing the thought.

Roger, Roger, Roger, what are we going to do with you.? Fading, on the down side, mentally fatigued, and, of course, with lingering mono residue....and now you're the reigning champ at 2 of the 4 majors. Takes skill to time your best runs for the majors.

The discussion of the goat....is fun....keeps things interesting...and has many chapters yet to be written. I'm just glad a player can't be elected into the Hall of Fame while still playing. It would take the fun out of the second year of his/her career if they were already in the HoF after 1 year or 1 major. Federer is by no means done with his career. And he still has real challenges, namely Nadal on every surface and Murray on hard. So imo pronouncements to crown him at this point are premature.

And, unfortunately such a focus takes away from the tremendous accomplishment for Federer of winning the French. He has been #1 or #2 for 7 years running now, and on every surface. He's #1 on clay this year....who would have thunk it? Time to enjoy it for just a few minutes.