Hall of Fame – TalkTennis E-mail: newport@tennisfame.com The achievements of some of the most famous Tennis stars in the history of the sport are listed below. Andre Agassi Andre Agassi finally retired in 2006 at the age of 36, after enjoying one of the most successful Tennis careers in living memory. Agassi remains one of only five players in the history of the sport to have won all four Grand Slam titles. As for many players, the victory which alluded Agassi for the longest was the Men’s Singles title at the French Open. After making a dramatic comeback from a two set deficit, he finally claimed the title in 1999, by defeating Andrei Medvedev 1-6, 2-6, 6-4, 6-3, 6-4 in the Final of the tournament. During the course of his career, Agassi won eight Grand Slam tournaments. He was one of the most popular players of the 1990s, frequently drawing attention to himself with his well-developed sense of fashion.

His rivalry with compatriot Pete Sampras drew a great deal of public interest; any match which saw them pitched against each other was always guaranteed to draw a large audience. Agassi was the object of great tabloid scrutiny for a time in 1996 following his split with the actress Brooke Shields. His personal troubles led to a slump in his career, but he recovered quickly and enjoyed a further ten years as a professional player before a back injury forced him into retirement. Agassi married fellow Tennis star Steffi Graf in 2001. Those interested in learning more about Agassi and his career can visit the star’s Official website or his Online Fan Club. Boris Becker Boris Becker stormed onto the international Tennis stage in 1985, when he defeated Kevin Curran to become the youngest ever player to win Wimbledon, at the age of just 17. His power was immediately admired by observers and he acquired the nick-name ‘Boom Boom Becker’ on account of his formidable serve. He would win Wimbledon again in 1986 and 1989. He was finally ranked as the World Number One after his impressive performance in the 1991 Australian Open.

By the end of his career, Becker had won 49 Singles titles (including 6 Grand Slams) and 15 Doubles titles. He also won a Gold medal for Germany with Michael Stich in the Men’s Doubles in the 1992 Barcelona Olympics. Björn Borg Björn Borg was born in Stockholm in 1956. He enjoyed a successful Tennis career which included eleven Grand Slam titles, including an impressive six victories at the French Open. Borg’s notorious icy exterior meant Tennis commentators tagged him with the nickname ‘Ice Borg’ relatively early in his career. This name never seemed more apt than when Borg faced his nemesis John McEnroe. The intensity of McEnroe and Borg’s rivalry was never greater than during the famous Wimbledon Men’s Singles Final of 1980. Unfortunately for Borg, most Tennis fans look back nostalgically at McEnroe’s dramatic fourth set victory, and sometimes forget that Borg was the eventual victor in what is generally considered to be one of the greatest finals in the history of the tournament.

The final score was 1-6, 7-5, 6-3, 6-7 (16-18), 8-6. During the course of his career, Borg amassed over $3 million in prize money. His achievements were recognised when he was inducted to the International Tennis Hall of Fame in 1987. Jimmy Connors Connors won 109 titles during his career, including two Wimbledon Men’s Singles titles, off the back of his fantastic array of shots, most notably his incredible backhand. He also distinguished himself by becoming the only player to win the U.S. Open on all three surfaces on which it has been played: grass, clay and the hard court. A contemporary of Björn Borg and John McEnroe, the 1970s and early 1980s were the heyday of Connors’ career. In 1974, he came close to grasping a Golden Grand Slam, managing to win three of the four Grand Slam tournaments; only the French Open alluded him that year, as it would for the duration of his career. For further study of Jimmy Connors then check out his specialist page here on TalkTennis.

Roger Federer Roger Federer looks set to become one of the greatest Tennis players of all time. Federer is currently the undisputed World Number One and has already won ten Grand Slam tournaments and won over $30 million in prize money. He has become particularly skilled on grass, and took the Wimbledon Men’s Singles title with relative ease for four consecutive years between 2003 and 2006. Born in 1981 in Basel, Switzerland, the esteem with which Federer is held by his compatriots was recently made plain by the commission of a postage stamp bearing the Tennis star. Such an honour is unprecedented in Switzerland, as this accolade is usually reserved for long-dead national heroes. More information about Federer’s achievements and developments in his career can be found on his Official Website. Steffi Graf Steffi Graf is an undisputed Tennis legend. A number of pundits and polls have claimed that the former German star might even have been the greatest female player of the 20th Century. During the course of her career Graf won an incredible 22 Grand Slam tournaments, and accomplished the rare feat of winning all four Grand Slams in a single year (1988).

She is also the only player to have won each of the four Grand Slams at least four times. Graf was comfortable on all surfaces, reflected in the 377 weeks she spent ranked as the World Number One by the Women’s Tennis Association. Her Grand Slam victories were also complemented by many other Singles titles, two Olympic Gold medals (in 1984 and 1988) and a Silver medal in 1992. Graf was a member of the Fed Cup team for seven years. Steffi Graf retired from professional Tennis in August 1999 at the relatively young age of 30 due to persistent knee problems. In the same year, she delighted tabloid editors by becoming involved with fellow Tennis player Andre Agassi. The couple were married in 2001 and have two children together. For more on Steffi Graf then click here Martina Hingis Martina Hingis was born in Slovakia (formally Czechoslovakia) in 1980. She became the youngest ever Wimbledon Champion when she and her partner Helena Suková won the Ladies Doubles title when Hingis was only fifteen years old.

By 1997, she had reached Number One in the world rankings, had won the Wimbledon Ladies’ Singles title and the Australian Open. She had also managed to deny Venus Williams the Women’s Singles U.S Open title. While injuries forced her to withdraw from the game in 2001, she made a return to professional Tennis in the 2006/2007 season. Hingis has had quite a career – to read more about it then check out our page dedicated to her. Billie Jean King Billie Jean King was born in California in 1943. By the end of her career she had amassed a whopping 39 Grand Slam victories (12 Singles, 16 Ladies’ Doubles and 11 Mixed Doubles) and over $1 million in prize money at a time when tournaments did not have the immense purses typical today. The American was ranked fourth in the world by 1960 when she was only seventeen years old, and first won a Wimbledon title, the Ladies’ Doubles, a year later. King’s contribution to Tennis did not end with her incredible achievements on the court.

Both during her career and after her retirement, King’s dedication to securing equal opportunities (and, controversially, equal prize money) for women has been second to none. In recent years, the dedication of King and other advocates for complete equality has paid off; the French Open and Wimbledon will pay the winners of the Ladies’ and Men’s Finals equal amounts for the first time in 2007. Such developments have not been without serious debate though. King is well remembered for defeating Bobby King in a match broadcast to over 50 million people from the Houston Astrodome in 1973. She defeated King 6-4, 6-4, 6-3 in the match which became known as the "Battle of the Sexes". John McEnroe When most people think of John McEnroe, they recall his notoriously short fuse. His frequent displays of temper, including explosions such as "You cannot be serious!", earned him the nick-name "the Super-brat". McEnroe is remembered for the tense Men’s Singles Final of 1980, when he finally succumbed to his great rival Björn Borg in the fifth set, despite an impressive victory in the fourth.

He exacted his revenge on Borg later in 1980, and again in 1981, when he defeated the Wimbledon Champion at the U.S. Open. He took particular pride in representing the United States in the Davis Cup, an honour he perhaps took particularly seriously as a consequence of his father’s military background. Indeed, McEnroe was born in Germany, where his father was serving, in 1959 before moving back to New York as a toddler. While McEnroe might have almost as many tantrums as aces to his name during his career, he will ultimately be remembered for consistently ranking amongst the top ten male players in the world for ten consecutive years. During that time, he accumulated an impressive seventeen Grand Slam titles: seven Singles'; nine Men’s Doubles; and one Mixed Doubles. McEnroe is now a popular tennis commentator. Fred Perry As visitors enter the All England Club to watch Wimbledon each summer, they walk past a statue of Britain’s greatest Tennis hero. Fred Perry is the most successful British male Tennis star of all time.

His achievements are all the more remarkable considering that he did not take up Tennis until he was eighteen years old; prior to being introduced to the sport, Perry had been a World Table Tennis Champion. Born in Stockport in Cheshire in 1909, Perry went on to win each of the Grand Slam tournaments during the course of his career; the so-called Career Golden Grand Slam. He ranked amongst the top ten players in the world between 1931 and 1936, and was consistently ranked at Number One from 1934-6. Perry represented Great Britain a number of times in the Davis Cup, leading the team to the success which has alluded the national team in recent years. He died in Australia in 1995. For more on the last male English Wimbledon Champion this click here . Pete Sampras Pete Sampras was born in 1971 in Washington D.C. He first captured international attention when he beat Andre Agassi in the final match of the U.S. Open at the age of only nineteen. The roots of a long rivalry were born during the match. Sampras was always at his most comfortable on the lawns of Wimbledon.

He often referred to Centre Court as his "Cathedral". He won his first Wimbledon title in 1993 and would dominate Centre Court for the duration of the 1990s, losing out only to Dutchman Richard Krajicek in the 1996 semi-finals. Fans who flocked to Wimbledon to see Sampras play became even more excited when he was pitched against Agassi. Yet his success was not restricted to Wimbledon alone; from 1993-8 Sampras was ranked as the World Number One on the basis of his success in a variety of Championships. Those interested in learning more about Sampras might want to look at his Official Website or the Pete Sampras Fan Site . Monica Seles Monica Seles was born in Novi Sad in the former Yugoslavia in 1973. Seles has also represented the United States, as she became a U.S citizen in 1994. She became the youngest ever Champion of the French Open in 1990. She went on to win a further eight Grand Slam tournaments.

Seles’ career was interrupted in 1993 when she was stabbed in the back during a match in Hamburg in front of 6000 spectators. Her attacker turned out to be a mentally unstable man who was unhappy that Seles had usurped Steffi Graf from the Number One ranking. Fortunately, Seles’ injuries were not life threatening and she recovered quickly. For more on Monica Seles then read our page on her. Serena Williams There are few professional Tennis players who have had the experience of battling their way through the initial stages of a Grand Slam tournament only to look across the net in the Final to be confronted by their own sibling. This is, however, a scenario which the Williams sisters have become accustomed to in recent years. Venus and Serena are the two youngest of the five daughters of Richard Williams. They were raised in the rough L.A. suburb of Compton. Determined for his daughters to find a way out of their deprived neighbourhood, Richard Williams drilled them in the fundamentals of Tennis. When Serena and Venus showed clear aptitude for the sport, he started them on a carefully regimented training programme and began to enter them in youth competitions. Serena was born in Michigan in 1981.

Despite being a year younger than Venus, she managed to win a Grand Slam tournament before her sister. She subsequently won another seven Grand Slams and a number of other Singles and Doubles titles. Before 2002, Serena existed somewhat in the shadow of Venus, but emphatically bucked that trend when she won the French Open, Wimbledon and the U.S. Open that year. Since that point, she has been a prominent figure in women’s tennis, although her forays in other areas such as fashion have seen her influence dwindle. Venus Williams Venus Williams was born in Lynnwood, California in 1980. Venus has had a career marked by winning and losing streaks, but her losing streaks have not detracted from an extraordinary record. She entered her first Grand Slam tournament, the U.S. Open, in 1997, where she became the first unseeded player to reach the Final. She was denied the title in that year, however, by Martina Hingis. Venus fulfilled a dream in 2000 when she won Wimbledon after beating her sister in the the semi-final and her compatriot Lindsay Davenport in the Final.

On the following day, she also claimed the Ladies’ Doubles title, with Serena as her partner. The sisters also played together in the 2000 Sydney Olympics, when they took home a Gold medal on behalf of the United States. Venus also managed to win the Gold medal in the Women’s Singles event. Best Tennis Players by Decade Since the 1930's | Bleacher Report Best Tennis Players by Decade Since the 1930's Use your ← → (arrow) keys to browse the slideshow Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images 33 Comments The growth of tennis since the 1930’s has seen the sport go from one dominated by amateurs to the Open Era that began in 1968. Tennis has changed arguably more than any other sport. The equipment and surface that tennis is played on has evolved more than other sport. As with other sports, more countries have players on both tours that ever before, and the prize money in the Grand Slams is beginning to become equitable. Tennis is probably the only sport that has a near-equal footing with both women and men.

Since the Martina-Chrissy rivalry in the 1980’s, the WTA has garnered plenty of interest on its own. Tennis players legacies are judged on the amount of Grand Slam titles a player wins. The term was first used by New York Times writer John Kieran in 1933 when Australian Jack Crawford was attempting to become the first player to win the Grand Slam. Kieran wrote, ''If Crawford wins, that would be something like scoring a grand slam on the courts, doubled and vulnerable.” His run was ended by England’s Fred Perry. Perry became the first player to capture the career slam in 1935, and Don Budge was the first player to win all four slams in the same year in 1938. They were among the first two players to dominate tennis. Judging the most dominant player by decade among the men is more difficult prior to the open era. Many of the men played on the pro tour. They also had their own version of the Grand Slam, and Perry would later win the Pro Slam. Starting with the coronation of the term Grand Slam, here is a look at the best players by decade beginning in the 1930’s.

1930’s Helen Wills Moody Getty Images/Getty Images Wills Moody was the first and, until the present, the only player to win the most Grand Slams by gender in two different decades. Serena Williams currently has won the most Grand Slams in the 2000’s and 2010’s. She won her first title in 1923 and had already amassed 11 Grand Slam titles and one Olympic Gold Medal (1924) in the 1920’s. Between the 1926 and 1933 Wimbledon semifinals, Wills Moody went undefeated without dropping a set. She won eight Grand Slam titles in the 1930’s, three more than fellow American Helen Jacobs. Before Andy Murray captured his first Grand Slam title at the US Open in 2012, Fred Perry was a dominant player from the U.K. Perry was the dominant presence in tennis throughout the 1930’s. He was the first player, male or female, to win the Career Grand Slam. He accomplished the feat after winning the French Open title in 1935. He won eight Slams in the 1930’s.

He could have had more, but turned pro in 1936. Only amateurs were allowed into the Grand Slams before 1968. He won three straight Wimbledon titles from 1934-36, three US Open titles in four years from 1933-36 and led the British Davis Cup team to four straight Davis Cup titles between 1933-36. He added the U.S. Professional title in 1938. 1940’s Margaret Osborne DuPont Getty Images/Getty Images The 1940’s are a hard era to judge. During World War II, only the US Open was held. Wimbledon and the French Open were cancelled between 1940-1945, and the Australian Open was not held from 1941-1945. Frank Parker’s four titles led the men in the 1940’s, and Pauline Betz Addie and Margaret Osborne DuPont led the women with five. In the late 1930’s, the professional men’s tour started to gain momentum. Some of the biggest names in tennis began playing professionally in the 1940’s.

Jack Kramer won three Grand Slam titles and two professional major titles. Bobby Riggs won four combined grand slam-pro majors. If you add in her Grand Slam doubles titles in the 1940’s, DuPont’s total escalates to 20. She was the most dominant player in tennis during the 1940’s 1950’s Maureen Connolly Matthew Stockman/Getty Images “Little Mo” was the most dominant player in the tennis in the 1950’s. She accomplished a lot in short period of time. She won nine Grand Slam titles between 1951-54, all by the age of 19. A horseback riding accident ended her career early. She won the last nine Grand Slams she entered and had a 50-match Grand Slam winning streak. Her title at the French Open in 1953 made her the first female player to capture the career grand slam. She would go on to win Wimbledon and the US Open that year to become the first woman to win all four slams in the same year. The tragedy of her life would continue, as Conolly passed away from cancer at the age of 34 in 1969.

She left behind a husband and two daughters. The most dominant male amateur in the 1950’s was Tony Trabert. Trabert won five Grand Slam titles in the 1950 and also followed that up with titles at the 1956 and 1959 French Pro titles. Pancho Gonzales was arguably the most dominant player in the 1950’s overall. He won 11 professional slam titles and three tournament of champions. He won the Wembley Pro (England) from 1950-52 and the US Pro championship from 1953-59. The comparisons are difficult. Prior to the open era, professionals competed on a different tour. It was thought the professional tour was superior, but it’s hard to tell. Overall, because of her impact on the sport and her complete dominance in career that was cut short, Connolly was the most dominant player of the 1950’s. 1960’s Margaret Court Tony Duffy/Getty Images The 1960’s was the era that the professionals began to break away from the amateur events.

Although they had stronger fields, it was still the amateur events that captured the public’s imagination. The Open ERA would eventually change everything, beginning with the 1968 French Open. Margaret Court's 16 Grand Slam titles during the 1960’s are the most in any decade by any player, male or female. Seven of those titles came in her home country of Australia, although a grand slam did not have the competitive fields that they have today. All but three of those titles occurred before the advent of the open era. Court won all but Wimbledon in 1969 and followed that up with the Grand Slam in 1970. From the 1969 Australian Open through 1971 down under, Court captured eight of the nine slams. Her 24 career Grand Slams are still the record. Roy Emerson won the most Grand Slam titles by a man in the 1960’s with 12, but Rod Laver was the undisputed king of tennis in the 1960.

Laver twice won a grand slam (1962 and 1969), won 11 Grand Slam titles and eight majors on the professional tour before the Open Era. Court gets the nod as the most dominant player of the decade. Her record of 16 Grand Slams in a decade still stands. It has been challenged twice. Martina Navratilova won 15 in the 1980s, and Roger Federer matched that in the 2000s. 1970’s Bjorn Borg Tony Duffy/Getty Images The dawn of the open era placed all the players on the same tour. The best players were now in an equitable place for comparison. The women had three dominant players during the 1970’s. Chris Evert’s career began, and her nine grand slam titles were the most of any player male or female during the decade. Court was just behind her with eight, and Billie Jean King won seven of her 12 career grand slam titles in the decade. Bjorn Borg earns the title of most dominant player of the 1970’s. His eight grand slam titles were three more than any other man.

He won the last four Wimbledons of the decade and the last two French Opens. He only played in one Australian Open. It was not a given during that era that the top players would compete down under. He also advanced to two US Open finals during the decade. His 11 career Slams overall rank fourth all-time among men. 1980’s Martina Navratilova Tony Duffy/Getty Images Navratilova entered the 1980’s having won the final two Wimbledons of the 1970’s. Her rise and rivalry with Chris Evert was one of the biggest attractions for what some consider the golden age of tennis. With Evert, they held an unprecedented dominance over the sport. They played 61 times in the finals of a tournament, including 14 times in a grand slam final. Eleven of those 14 meetings in a Grand Slam final occurred in the 1980’s. Navratilova won all but three of those meetings. Navratilova was the ITA World Champion and WTA Player of the Year from 1982-86.

She won six straight Wimbledon titles between 1982-87 and also captured four US Open titles in that timespan. Her 15 Grand Slam titles in the 80’s occurred from the 1981 Australian Open through the 1987 US Open. She held all four Grand Slam titles at the same time when she won the last three titles of 1984 and the Australian in 1985. She had one of the greatest seasons in tennis history in 1984. During that season, Navratilova had a 74-match winning streak. Ivan Lendl: If not for Navratilova, fellow Czech Lendl would have been the most dominant player during the 1980’s. His seven Grand Slam titles fall far short of Navratilova, but he was best player of the decade for the men. In addition to his seven Grand Slam titles, Lendl also finished runner-up in a slam nine times. He was the ITF Champion and ATP Player of the year from 1985-1987.

1990's Pete Sampras Clive Brunskill/Getty Images Pete Sampras held near complete domination over the men’s game during the 1990’s. He won 12 Grand Slam titles. Andre Agassi’s five was the second highest amount. The 12 titles tied Roy Emerson’s record for slams in a career. He won two more titles in the 2000’s to set the record for 14. It was broken by Roger Federer at Wimbledon in 2009. Twelve of his 14 Grand Slam titles came at the US Open and Wimbledon. His seven titles are tied for the most ever with William Renshaw and Federer. Six of those came in the 1990’s, and four of his five US Open titles occurred in the 1990’s. Sampras also claimed the Australian Open in 1994 and 1997. His best finish at the French Open was a semifinal run in 1996. Sampras was also a member of two Davis Cup-winning teams. He teamed with John McEnroe to give the US a doubles point in 1992.

In 1995, he almost singlehandedly led the United States to victory. He won both of his singles matches and teamed with Todd Martin to earn the doubles point. Sampras finished the 90’s with 61 titles and an 11-2 record in Grand Slam finals. Steffi Graf was the most dominant woman of the 1990’s. If she had began her career about four years later, she would have had the most dominant decade in the history of tennis. By the time the 1990’s began, Graf had accumulated eight Grand Slam titles, a gold medal and the Golden Slam in 1988. She ended the 1980’s with Martina Navratilova as her main rival. Monica Seles was the dominant player from 1991 through the 1993 Australian Open. She won eight out of the 12 Grand Slams during that stretch. If not for Graf’s straight set win over Seles at Wimbledon in 1992, Seles would have captured the Grand Slam. Seles’ 1993 stabbing by a fan of Graf’s opened the door for Graf to regain her dominance.

From that point forward, she won the next four Grand Slam titles. In 1995 and 1996, she did not play in Australia, but won the other three Grand Slams back-to-back. She won her final title in Paris in 1999. 2000’s Roger Federer Paul Gilham/Getty Images Federer’s dominance in the 2000’s is unprecedented. His 15 titles during the decade rank as the most titles ever by a male in their career and tied him for the most in any decade with Martina Navratilova. Federer’s dominance transcends tennis. His dominance of tennis in the 2000’s is in the discussion for any sport. After quarterfinals at the French Open and Wimbledon in 2001, Federer did not win his first Grand Slam until Wimbledon 2003. During his 2001 run, he defeated Sampras in five sets in the fourth round. That was the effective passing of the torch from the two greatest Wimbledon champions. From 2004 Wimbledon until the 2010 Australian Open, he advanced to an astounding 22 consecutive Grand Slam Semifinals.

In the middle of that streak, he played for an incredible 10 consecutive Grand Slam Finals, winning eight. When he won the ever elusive French Open in 2009, Federer became the sixth man to win the career grand slam. The only title he has yet to win is a singles gold medal in the Olympics. Serena Williams' 10 grand slam titles in the 2000’s rank fifth among women all-time. She missed five grand slam tournaments during the decade. When she won the last three grand slam in 2002 and the Australian Open in 2003, she was dubbed with the Serena Slam. She repeated at Wimbledon in 2004 for a total of five out of six grand slam titles. She was 10-2 in the decade in Grand Slam finals and also captured two WTA Tour Year End Championships 2010’s Novak Djokovic Matthew Stockman/Getty Images With only three years complete in the decade, choosing the most dominant player was difficult. Rafael Nadal ’s five Grand Slam titles and three runners-ups top Djokovic’s four and three.

Nadal lost in the quarterfinals in Australia in 2010 and 2011 and lost in the second round at Wimbledon before sitting out the US Open in 2012 with injury problems. Djokovic is currently on a run similar to Federer in the 2000’s. After losing in the quarterfinals in Australia and at the French in 2010, he has gone on a run of 10 straight semifinal appearances in a Grand Slam. Djokovic has also has 17 titles thus far in the 2010’s. His 2011 season clinches the title for him. He finished the season 70-6 and had a 43-match winning streak to begin the season. His streak included victories in seven consecutive tournaments. He beat Nadal six times in a tournament final on three different surfaces. Serena Williams is one of only two players to ever win the most Grand Slam titles by gender over the course of two decades. Helen Willis Moody had the most in the 1920’s and 1930’s.

She followed up her dominance to begin the 21st century with four Grand Slams thus far through the 2012 US Open. She is one of only a handful of players to win a Grand Slam title in three different decades. Martina Navratilova was the last player to accomplish that with titles in the 1970’s, 80’s and 1990’s. She won titles in Australia and Wimbledon and capped it with titles at Wimbledon, an Olympic gold medal (just weeks later again at Wimbledon) and the US Open. She is challenging to become the greatest woman of all-time. She accomplished all this in the 2010’s despite missing the 2010 US Open and 2011 Australian and French Open’s with a severe foot injury. Is Roger Federer the greatest ever or the second best of his generation? | Sport | The Guardian Guardian Sport Network Is Roger Federer the greatest ever or the second best of his generation?

Federer has won 17 grand slams while playing a brand of tennis that would make the gods sing, but Rafa Nadal had his number Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer embrace after the Australian Open final in 2009 Photograph: Greg Wood/AFP/Getty Images Paul Gibson for The Balls of Wrath, part of the Guardian Sport Network Thursday 11 September 2014 05.45 EDT Last modified on Monday 4 April 2016 10.42 EDT Share on Messenger Close Midway through the second week of this year’s US Open, the sports pages were once again rife with articles in praise of the tennis doyen’s tennis doyen, Sir Roger Federer . The Sir prefix is pure facetiousness on my part but it would not surprise me if a SW19 pressure group are currently lobbying furiously behind the scenes for Britain to invade and conquer Switzerland, incorporate it within the realm of the Commonwealth and open the door for Roger to be knighted.

At Flushing Meadows he had comfortably beaten Marinko Matosevic, Sam Groth, Marcel Granollers and Bautista Agut, ranked 76th, 104th, 42nd and 19th in the world respectively, and then saved match points to scrape past the world No24 and make the semi-finals. With a host of big names absent through defeat or injury, Federer only had to overcome the 16th best player in the world to reach the final. Instead he was soundly beaten in straight sets by Marin Cilic and sent packing back to his young family in Bottmingen. It is a story all too familiar throughout the past five years, despite how well it tends to be hidden amongst more heralded tales of infrequent and minor triumphs. At 33 years of age, Federer is now well into the twilight of his career. He last won a big one when he was 30 and that major triumph arrived after a wait of two and a half years.

You would have thought that with just one Grand Slam title in five years, the Swiss maestro would have been consigned to yesterday’s news in the fast-paced, unforgiving, winning-is-everything world of 21st century professional sports. But, much like his old shaving buddy Tiger Woods, Federer continues to captivate. Why? Simply because he’s the greatest player ever to pick up a racquet. Isn’t he? I’m not so sure. Not long after the red dust had settled on Roland Garros at the end of the 2011 French Open, Federer said of his rivalry with Rafael Nadal , “If I play well, I will most likely win in the score or beat him; if I’m not playing so well, that’s when he wins.” He had just lost the final to the Spaniard in four sets, presumably not playing so well for the 17th time in 25 meetings between the pair. Perhaps moved by the distinct lack of logic, not to mention grace, in Federer’s comment, it got me to thinking about the Swiss player’s assumed place in the history books as the greatest to ever play the game.

I felt it a premature coronation back then and nothing has changed since to alter my view. Attempting to compare individual sportspeople can be a thankless task, fraught with various pitfalls and insurmountable difficulties. Generational divides regularly render even the most informed debate pure conjecture as direct match-ups must take place within the realms fantasy. The majority of high profile sports being team events further muddy the waters. A sport’s evolution, either naturally or through the onset of professionalism, also hinders a balanced evaluation of greatness as certain games can develop almost beyond all recognition. As rugby players in every position appear to have doubled in size in the last three decades, asking which of Ireland’s two outstanding centres, Mike Gibson from the 60s and 70s or 21st century Brian O´Driscoll, is the greatest is akin to comparing apples and pears. Technological advancement in sports equipment is yet another obstacle to ranking greatness. Would Tiger Woods, standing on the tee gripping a steel shafted driver with a persimmon wood head a fraction the size of today’s clubs, have been able to match Jack Nicklaus around a golf course? The javelin has moved in the opposite direction.

In 1984 Uwe Hohn’s spear flew for over 104 metres. Following adjustments to the design specifications two years later, no one has come within five metres of his mark since. We will never know how far Jan Zelezny could have hurled Hohn’s javelin. The question of who is the greatest tennis player to have played the game encounters all of the above issues bar the team sport dilemma and this article therefore makes no attempt to answer it. Rod Laver and Bjorn Borg fans can relax. The question of who is the greatest tennis player out of Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal , however, encounters none of the above issues. This piece therefore aims to compare and contrast these two players alone. It intends to posit that the Swiss is not even as great as the Spaniard and can therefore not possibly be lauded as the greatest of all time. Federer’s position at the head of the pantheon of greats appeared cemented in place when he became the most prolific winner of tennis grand slams in the history of the sport.

To the majority of observers, this is the most significant statistic in tennis and the record book reads that Federer currently has 17 to his name, three more than his nearest challengers, Pete Sampras and Nadal. But as the great 19th century American statesman Henry Clay once said: “Statistics are no substitute for judgement.” The same record book also reads that as well as being 23–10 down to Nadal in head-to-heads, Federer does not have a winning record against Andy Murray after 22 matches between them. Even so, I doubt even the most patriotic Scotsman would argue that Murray is the greater player. It is therefore necessary to look beyond the magic number 17. A comparative study of the pair must deal with Federer being almost five years older than Nadal. Federer was winning titles while Nadal was still learning the game and it is likely that the Spaniard will keep triumphing in tournaments for several years after his great rival has hung up his racquet.

Every tennis player is different, but if we assume that these two entered their peak years around the age of 22 – the time Federer won his first Grand Slam title (Nadal had already won three French Opens before he turned 22) – and both will compete somewhere around this level until their 30th birthday, that gives each an eight-year period at the top of their game. It also allows that both men faced each other in their simultaneous primes from the summer of 2008 until the summer of 2012. Closer analysis of this window of time is telling. They met 14 times in that period, with Nadal winning on 10 occasions. Federer’s victories came on the clay of Madrid in 2009 and on the hard courts of London and Indian Wells – neither were grand slam events. Among Nadal’s 10 wins, three were on hard courts, one was on grass and the rest were on clay. Notably, four of his victories were when it mattered most, in grand slam finals. They also occurred on three different surfaces - the Mallorcan ceased being a clay court specialist very early in his career.

In total Nadal won eight grand slams in these four years, compared to the five Federer collected, and he amassed 12 Masters titles with Federer winning six. Nadal also won the Olympic gold medal in 2008, and in 2010 he became the only player in history to win three grand slams on three different surfaces in one season. He has already bypassed Federer on the all-time list of Masters triumphs - no one has more than Rafa’s 27 trophies in their cabinet. It should also be noted that in 2009 Nadal, struggling with tendonitis in both knees, suffered the only defeat of his career at Roland Garros (in the fourth round to Robin Soderling) and was unable to defend his title at the Wimbledon Championships. In his absence Federer won both tournaments and in doing so completed the career grand slam of winning a Major on all four surfaces and broke Sampras’ record number of Grand Slam titles. Few believe he would ever have won the French Open had he had to contend with a fit Nadal. Clearly, the majority of Federer’s achievements have come when Nadal is not around.

Indeed, the Swiss already had twelve Grand Slam titles in the bag before Nadal entered his peak years. This is perhaps not surprising when a quick look at his major rivals pre-Rafa reveals a distinctly different calibre of opponent. Andy Roddick, Lleyton Hewitt and Marat Safin were all good players; but certainly no more than that. When one sees the names of Mark Philippoussis, Marco Baghdatis and Fernando Gonzalez also on the list of Federer’s victims in Grand Slam finals, it suggests that this was not exactly a golden age in men’s tennis. Of course, none of this is Federer’s fault. As the old sporting adage goes, you can only beat what is put in front of you, and many will argue that the merits of Federer’s peers at this time should not be allowed to detract from his early achievements. Nevertheless, those that argue that Federer is the greatest cannot then deny that Nadal never had it so easy in his quest for titles. He has faced a potential meeting with Federer in every Grand Slam he has ever signed up for – indeed he has beaten his Swiss foe in nine of them and lost in only two.

Then we have the current world number one Novak Djokovic. Already with seven Grand Slam titles to his name, the 27 year old Serb has more than the combined total Roddick, Hewitt and Safin managed in their entire careers and appears a safe bet to add to his tally before he retires. So it is a fact that at this point in history, over the course of significantly less time, and with a clearly superior standard of opponent across the net, Nadal is already ahead of Federer in every relevant statistic you can think of - bar the big one. It begs the question, should Nadal go on to claim 18 Grand Slam titles and eclipse Federer’s record, will Federer advocates acknowledge that their man has been usurped? The answer is probably not. The truth is that people do not like to admit they are wrong. Federer was hastily coronated in the midst of his domination because nobody foresaw the teenage clay-court sensation from Mallorca developing into the complete player.

Roddick, Hewitt, Safin et al were happy to provide a tennis press, already enamoured with the multi-lingual Swiss (does anything impress a native English speaking sports journalist more than a sportsperson fielding questions in more than one language?), with monthly quotes extolling the greatness of the man that had seemingly effortlessly despatched them once again. It legitimised their own failings. It lessened their own sense of failure. Why simply say he was too good for me again today when you can wax lyrical about him being too good for anyone, anywhere, at any time? The mainstream press soon followed suit and so long as Sir Roger kept gracing the manicured lawns of SW19 with his white blazer, Rolex watch and deferential acceptance of the Wimbledon trophy each July, few in the public felt moved to question his position at the head of the table. To backtrack a few years later would make a lot of people look rather foolish. In an effort to head off the more lazy retorts that it is the way Federer wins that places him above Nadal in the all-time stakes, it is necessary to briefly consider the style dimension of this sporting greatness debate.

It is often said that there are few things in the world of sport more aesthetically pleasing to look at than Roger Federer’s one handed backhand. If you ever wondered why striking a tennis ball is referred to as a stroke, then just watch him execute this shot. He isn’t hitting the ball, he is caressing it. It is a thing of beauty and, like almost everything Federer does on a tennis court, it is carried out with an effortless grace that belies the power and speed generated. Nadal on the other hand hits the ball. Relentlessly. Federer continued his charm offensive in the press conference following his 2011 French Open defeat by disparagingly describing Nadal as being “content to do the one thing for the entire time” during a match. Leaving aside the fact that a one-dimensional tennis player could not possibly win 14 Majors, why on earth would Rafa change a winning style, regardless of what it is or how it looks? While his bludgeoning heavy top-spin blows may not be as easy on the eye, has there been a more devastatingly effective shot than his forehand in professional tennis over the past five or six years?

It is hard to think of one. So should Federer’s perceived (beauty is in the eye of the holder remember) extra elegance swing the debate in his favour? I don’t think so. Style may well constitute a factor to be considered, but only to the degree that other clichéd intangibles such as grit, determination, perseverance and will to win figure in the debate. They are all elements that make up or influence an individual player’s game. But success or failure is determined by the sum of all the parts. By the talent that each possess as a whole. It is not merely Nadal’s strength or passion that beats Federer any more than it is Federer’s flair or ballerina-like movement around the court that beats Nadal. Quite simply, over time, the greater tennis player will win more often than everyone else. For the current tennis generation, that player is undoubtedly Rafael Nadal.

Fred Perry: the icon and the outcast | History Extra Directory Fred Perry: the icon and the outcast With Wimbledon upon us, Kevin Jefferys reviews the career of the man who triumphed 78 years ago, Fred Perry Monday 23rd June 2014 BBC History Magazine - 5 issues for £5 Britain dominated the world of lawn tennis in the mid-1930s thanks largely to Fred Perry. For three years he was the undisputed world number one, winning a string of major titles and making a vital contribution to Britain’s domination of the premier international competition in tennis, the Davis Cup. His legacy remains powerful today. Visitors to Wimbledon often stop to peer at the three-quarter-life-size statue of Perry, unveiled 50 years after his first victory at the Championships, showing him smartly attired and hitting his famous forehand drive. Today Perry has iconic status, but it was not always so: this champion was once Britain’s unsung tennis hero. A hundred years on from his birth, it should not be forgotten that in his prime playing days, and for many afterwards, Perry was acclaimed across the tennis world but was not universally admired in his homeland.

Top, but not ‘the best' Journalists watching him defeat the Australian Jack Crawford to lift the Wimbledon crown in 1934 commented on the “strange lack of excitement” among spectators, and one American magazine went as far as to say: “Perry is not a popular champion at home”. In an incident that rankled for the rest of his life, Perry’s elation at taking the title turned to anger when he overheard a Wimbledon committee member saying to Crawford in the dressing room after the final that this was one day “when the best man didn’t win”. A major factor in explaining this coolness towards Perry was his social background. The Perry family had northern working class roots and Fred only had the chance to take up tennis when his father, developing a career in left-wing politics, moved after the First World War to an area of London where suburban tennis clubs were expanding rapidly. Instead of being confined exclusively to the rich, tennis was becoming an option for aspiring families such as the Perrys. But as he sought to make his way in the game, Fred Perry faced many who saw him as not ‘one of us’ – the traditional public-school educated middle classes who still dominated British tennis as players, administrators and officials.

One insider summed up the attitude towards Perry when he first won a place on the Davis Cup team by saying: “as we’ve got to have the bloody upstart, we might as well knock him into shape and try and get the best out of him”. As the dressing room episode in 1934 illustrated, even winning Wimbledon did not remove all traces of social prejudice. Perry was not entirely a passive victim of the class distinctions in British society between the wars. His abrasiveness and refusal to “let people tell me what to do or order me about” made him enemies in tennis circles. Players in the 1930s were expected to behave with decorum; ‘gentleman Jack Crawford’ was known for his exemplary court manners. Fred Perry, by contrast, possessed a ruthless streak, refused to conceal his ambition and indulged in gamesmanship such as making offensive personal remarks to opponents. Despite dominating the world scene he offended the sensibilities of well-to-do Wimbledon spectators because his court persona was so much at odds with the ethos of the day. It also mattered that tennis remained firmly wedded to amateur principles.

The idea that the game should be played for pleasure not profit – and in the right spirit – had been rigorously enforced since the Victorian period by the Lawn Tennis Association (LTA). Lacking the pedigree and temperament of traditional gentleman amateurs such as Crawford, Perry clashed with the authorities and was increasingly tempted to cash in on his global fame. Simmering difficulties with the LTA continued until, at the end of 1936, he left Britain to join a small professional circuit living and touring mostly in the USA. This move enabled him to make large sums of money but meant he was banned from the world’s top amateur events, including Wimbledon and the Davis Cup. At the start of 1937, Perry thus found himself a sporting outcast in his homeland. He was relieved of his honorary membership of the prestigious All England Club – awarded to him as Wimbledon champion – and when his professional tour visited Britain he was barred from appearing on the courts of any LTA-affiliated club. There was no campaign in Britain in the late 1930s to find and cultivate new champions in Perry’s wake. Instead, the most successful player the nation had produced became almost a non-person in the eyes of the tennis establishment.

After the Second World War, Perry built a new life based around business enterprises (notably the famous Fred Perry sportswear label), coaching and commentating. Based mainly in the USA, which he found less hidebound than Britain about social distinctions, his frosty relationship with the All England Club and the LTA improved slowly over the years, especially when tennis finally embraced professionalism after 1968. Even so, it was only towards the end of his life that reconciliation became complete. The same bodies that once shunned him were ever more anxious to honour Perry, in part because his reputation soared as the years passed in which no British man was able to match his success. His appreciation of the unveiling of the statue in 1984 was enhanced when the All England Club chairman said he hoped that Fred agreed Wimbledon was “today the most hospitable of clubs”, in contrast to the unfriendliness of earlier times. In the same year, a quarter of a century ago, Perry was the only tennis player listed in a survey of 2,000 Britons aimed at finding the ‘Best of the Best’ British sportsmen of the 20th century. At long last, Fred Perry was no longer Britain’s unsung tennis hero.

His place as a domestic sporting legend was secure. Born: 18 May 1909, Stockport Died: 2 February 1995 in Melbourne, attending the Australian Open Claims to fame: Won Wimbledon on three successive occasions (1934, 1935 and 1936); the first man to win all four ‘grand slam’ titles – Wimbledon, Australian, French and American championships – though not in the same year Playing style: immensely quick, with all-court ability; trademark shot a deadly ‘early-ball’ running forehand Wimbledon record: reached semi final once in five attempts before 1934 and won mixed doubles twice Other achievements: won a total of eight grand slam titles, three in the USA and one each in Australia and France.

He also played a pivotal role as Britain won the Davis Cup four years running (1933–36) British players at Wimbledon Since Fred Perry’s last victory in 1936, four British women have won the singles title: Dorothy Round (1908–82) Claims to fame: one of only two British women since 1920s to win Wimbledon twice; refused as a Christian to play on Sundays Playing style: all rounder comfortable both at baseline and net Wimbledon record: reached quarter finals four times; lost in final 1933; took title in 1934 and 1937; won mixed doubles three times, twice with Perry Other achievements: won Australian championships (1935) Angela Mortimer (born 1932) Claims to fame: triumphed in first all-British Wimbledon final for nearly 50 years; built successful career despite being partially deaf Playing style: fast around court and particularly stinging forehand Wimbledon record: lost in one semi final and one final before beating Christine Truman in tight 1961 finale Other achievements: won two other grand slam titles, in France (1955) and Australia (1958

) Ann Jones (born 1938) Claims to fame: first left-hander to win women’s singles at Wimbledon; like Fred Perry, competed in world table tennis championships before concentrating on tennis Playing style: consistent, penetrating ground strokes and tough competitor Wimbledon record: lost in semi finals six times and final once before famous three-set victory over Billie Jean King (1969) Other achievements: won French championships twice (1961, 1966); runner-up in total of six grand slam finals Virginia Wade (born 1945) Claims to fame: triumphed at Wimbledon’s 1977 centenary championships in front of Queen Elizabeth, attending during her Silver Jubilee; first woman elected to committee of All England Club Playing style: athletic all-court game built on strong serve and volley Wimbledon record: 1977 win over Betty Stove was one of over 20 appearances Other achievements: remarkable 55 singles titles in 26-year career, including grand slam events in USA (1968) and Australia (1972) Before Andy Murray's victory at Wimbledon, few British men have even come close to taking the singles crown since Perry: HW ‘Bunny’ Austin

 (1906–2000) Claims to fame: last British man to reach Wimbledon singles final; among first to wear shorts on the famous grass courts Playing style: elegant baseliner, renowned for accuracy Wimbledon record: reached latter stages several times; soundly beaten in final by Americans Ellsworth Vines (1932) and Donald Budge (1938) Other achievements: superb British number two to Perry in Davis Cup; reached final of French championships (1937) Mike Sangster (1940–85) Claim to fame: first British man since Bunny Austin to reach last four at Wimbledon (1961) Playing style: built around one of the fastest serves in the modern game Wimbledon record: aside from 1961, never progressed beyond third round in ten attempts Other achievements: strong record in grand slams, reaching quarter finals in Australia twice and semi finals in United States (1961) and France (1963) Roger Taylor (born 1941) Claims to fame: reached semi finals at Wimbledon three times (1967, 1970, 1973), on last occasion beating youthful Björn Borg

 en route; good looks made him one of so-called ‘Handsome Eight’ of touring professionals in late 1960s Playing style: rugged left-hander with wide variety of shots Wimbledon record: never went beyond second round except in his three best years Other achievements: won six singles and eight doubles titles, including United States doubles twice (1971, 1972) Tim Henman (born 1974) Claims to fame: within two points of reaching Wimbledon final before losing to Goran Ivanisevic in 2001; inspired and frustrated legions of British tennis fans, including those on ‘Henman Hill’ at Wimbledon Playing style: one of the last instinctive serve-and-volleyers Wimbledon record: four-time semi-finalist (1998, 1999, 2001, 2002), on each occasion losing to eventual winner Other achievements: won 11 singles titles; reached world ranking of four Kevin Jefferys is professor of history at Plymouth University.

His publications include Finest & Darkest Hours (Atlantic, 2002) and Politics & the People (Atlantic, 2007)

Question: Which tennis player won 11 Grand Slam titles during the second half of the 20th century, but only ever won one match at the Australian Open?
Answer: Bjorn Borg