When you stop to think.... Federer didn't really have many really, really good opponents when he was at his height. He has achieved heaps but, when you look back at the like of Borg's era where there were the like of Connors, McEnroe around ..... no comparison really. A shame in a way, because it's probably done Fed no favours. For me, he's been a bit guilty of resting on his laurels and he's got that used to beating players who are not in his league, that he can't deal now with players who are in his league, and in a league above him. Probably got so comfortable with his game and thinking he didn't need to do any more...... Rafa and Murray have shown that's not the case, and now it's too late - hence the crying and the barbed jibes - he knows it.
Borg was very impressive, no doubt about it. Would have been interesting to see how much he would have achieved had he not retired at 26.
But more impressive to me were Rosewall and Laver, who won more major titles than any other men in history (19 slams and 23 major professional pre-open era titles between them, not to mention 17 slams in the doubles) and did this during careers which ran concurrently with each other.
But it's a symptom of the modern psyche that best right now
is generally interpreted as greatest ever
in a lot of sports. Either that, or the GOAT in the majority of individual sports has been around in the last decade or so - off the top of my head Federer, Woods, Schumacher, Phelps, Armstrong, Phil Taylor, Stephen Hendry (or, laughably, O'Sullivan in the eyes of some), and I'm sure I've missed a couple. Ok, I'd give you at least one of those (Taylor), perhaps as many as four, but all of them? No way.
And Federer's nearest challenger when he was winning a lot of his titles was a teenage clay court specialist way before his peak, which has to say something