There is no ONE great. You can't compare eras. Roger is one of the greatest without a doubt..but there is another player in his era that OWNS him..and I'm talking about Mr. Rafael Nadal. Another thing to remember is that Rafa has won ALL 6 of his slam titles by beating Roger Federer....

Rafa's career is far from done..I wouldn't be so quick to call Federer "the GOAT" lets see what Rafa will do.

Go Tennis!

good afternoon i think roger federer is the best of all time for this reason he won the french open on clay. and he simply owns wimbledon and it isn't because of nadal's absense and this match with roddick will be a classic.

i think this match was great and a classic which you will see on espn classic it was great that pete was there to see history being made

Say you held a fantasy, Field of Dreams-like tennis tournament, where all the greats, Laver, Nadal, Borg, Sampras, Gonzalez, Agassi, McEnroe, etc., all at their absolute peaks, were in the draw and the winner would have bragging rights to being the greatest of all time. Tournament's on hardcourt which I'd say is fair since hardcourt plays faster than clay but slower than grass. Who'd come through? In my opinion, the winner of said tournament would be Mr. Federer.

Number 15 for Roger. Incredible. Hats off to Roddick.

Rocket Rod was fantastic...a scrapper through and through.

But Federer would have consistently beaten anyone in any era, as he's done in this one.

Perhaps Nadal is not in this vote because he has not yet proven himself to in the vote. I think Nadal is a fabulous player, but he has more work to do before he's put into the same category as Federer and Sampras. I would also like to point out that Federer held the world #1 spot for over four years. Nadal did not hold the #1 spot for a year. Many people may not know this but Federer was playing tennis and lost his world #1 while he had mono. Some may think that Federer only holds the #1 spot becausae Nadal was not present at Wimbledon at was defeated early at the French. Federer did beat Nadal many times while he was #1 in the world. Last year Nadal played better tennis than Federer, though, though I don't think anyone could play their best tennis with mono. I think Roder is going to hold onto this #1 spot for a long time and Nadal has a lot more tennis and a lot more winning before I put him in the same camp as Sampras, Federer, and Agasi. I hope Federer can play Nadal at the French finals next year and beat him!

The Greatest Wimbledon Champion of all time was William Renshaw.

Have to vote Federer based on 15 slams but how many would Laver have won had he been allowed to play between 1963-1968; probably his 11 plus the 12 won by Emerson.  On the other hand, I agree with Laver that you can't compare eras.  I think you have to have a "greatest" of each era. 

Very slight nod to Roger. However, say what you will about the dept in men's tennis today, it is nothing compared to the way it was during Sampras' era. You had top 10 players that often times made it to the quarters and beyond in the slams. Edberg, Becker, Lendl, Agassi. Not to mention the racquets today. Don't get me wrong Fed is crazy great, but I think that Sampras at his prime based on serve and volley ability, greatest serve ever, and more power (Sampras hit a flatter ball) would beat Fed in two out of three matches.

It's hard to compare players of different eras that never actually played each other. All we really have to go by is how well they performed on the biggest stages - The Grand Slam events. Therefore, I give my vote to Roger as the best ever (because he's won more slams than any anyone else).

It's definitely generational. Laver missing 25 slams but playing 3 of 4 on grass. Borg winning 5 Wimbledon and 6 French is astounding when one considers the achillies heel is either grass or clay for most tennis greats. Also Borg didn't win the US Open and rarely went to Åustralia. Sampras was never close on clay. Fedder is the 2nd best clay court player today and he's won on all surfaces. For me Borg, Laver and Fedder are all tied and Sampras a bit back of them. We'll review after Fedder retires.

Different players over different eras notwithstanding, I have to give the title to Federrer, followed by Sampras. But, on a personal note, I always found Sampras's matches to be rather boring. In fact, I found today's Wimbledon final to be a bit boring. Big power-server stands up, hits the ball one time, point scored, do it again...yawn. Yes, Roddick has a big serve, but big servers do the fans and spectators a huge disservice. And that's what I thought of Sampras and his era of tennis. The only bright spot in Sampras's era of tennis was Andre Agassi (followed possibly by Boris Becker). Of course Sampras could serve and volley in a pinch, but mostly his games were: Step 1) hit ball really hard for an ace. Step 2) Repeat Step 1. (Yawn, Zzzzzzzzzzz) Oops, nodded off there for a second. That's what I thought of Roddick's game today; ...boring.

Pete Sampras is the best-ever. Roddick should have been the winner today. He let the second set get by him.

Roger Federer is a great champion and certainly the greatest of his era, but IMHO Rod Laver still must be considered the "greatest of all time" if we're going to consider such a category. Because:

Laver won 2 grand slams (this is not a "career" grand slam but all four majors in a single year).

Laver was unable to play the slams for 5 years of his prime playing career before the open era. Laver has a total of 11 slam titles; certainly he would have won at least a handful more during those 5 key years when he was unable to play because of his pro status.

Take a look (youtube or elsewhere) at clips of Laver during his prime. It's an incredibly complete game with perfect technique and athleticism. He did everything and his serve-and-volley game was so much more than today's power only from the baseline.

Rod Laver is a gracious and humble champion.

Roger Federer the best. More to come. Borg left the game @ the top of his game.

Loved Pete Sampras. Wish he could have played forever.

Big serve, win the point, do it again, don't win the point and now win the point with ground strokes (Roddick)...that's where tennis begins - how to win on shot-making. Some greats (Sampras) set up the opponents with big serves, took away pressure to win with shot-making. The greatest player is there at the end because of a complete game, winning in more ways than one.

If Nadal lasts another 5 years and plays at his previous level, he may be a candidate for this poll. Agassi was never dedicated to the sport until most of his prime had past. He should be considered at least a level below the candidates on this poll....

Fed fans are the best, lets see now he's beat Andy Roddick for the 4th time in a grand slam final, Wow. Lets see, after Roddicks serve, he's very average at best with ground strokes, movement and fair with any improvising, volleys, etc. Today, was Andy at his very best, with a very flawed tennis game. Fed fans would like nothing more than him playing mediocre players of his time for grand slam finals (example, M. Philippoussis, Baghdais, Gonzalez, Roddick x 4, etc.) I know you don't like reality, but it's SCOREBOARD time again, Lets see Nadal 13 Fed 7, you know what would have happened today against Nada.....another physical/mental beat down, but I know you don't like it when your guy gets beat up playing the best competition in his time, but the SCOREBOARD isn't going away. deal with it.

Agassi won eight majors, McEnroe seven. Though very popular due mainly to their non-tennis personnas, they're not even IN the conversation for GOAT... and they would tell you that, too. Ditto for Nadal until he gets into double digits and adds longevity/consistency to his thus-far brilliant career. Six majors gets you in the same class with Edberg and Becker. That's great, but not Greatest Of All Time great. I think Lendl and Connors exceed all of the above with their sustained greatness over such a long period, and they're not even in the discussion, either.