Roger Federer is the greatest tennis player ever.

With Federer's recent French Open Championship, he ties Sampras with 14 major titles (the most all time). Greatness is determined by the abiality to for a play to win, and win big. Tied for the most grand Slam titles, Federer has also complete the career grand slam (winning the Australian, French, Us Open's and Wimbledon). Federer also holds the record for most consecutive Grand slam finals. Federer also has the most concecutive weeks ranked at number one, as well as 4th on the all time list. Federer is 8th on the all time list in tournment titles (7 behind Sampras which he should easily catch befor retiring). And on top of all these historical all time records: He's still playing, oh and guess what. If you hadn't heard: He's still winning.

Thanks to my opponent.
Though Federer recently tied Sampras for the overall record of Grand Slam wins, among other accomplishments, this does not mean that he is the greatest player ever. The main reason for this is variations in skill level among the competition from year to year. Because we will never be able to see who would win between Federer and Sampras, we can never know who the greatest player is. Federer may only be winning as much as Sampras did because the other players this year are not as strong. We cannot rely on comparisons of victories because of these variations.
Greatness is not determined by "the ability to play to win, and win big." We can never know if Sampras would beat Federer simply based on win-loss records.

The skill set is tennis is as strong now as ever. And you could say in one given year, yes maybe one slam is a little easier or a little harder. That is why you have to look at the players entire career. An entire era of tennis can't have only on good player. Federer has everything he needs to make him the best ever, including an arch-rival in Nadal. Nadal is definently an elite tennis player, and Federer's outstanding dominance while he is playing is incredible. Also, Sampras was good yes, but he didn't complete the career slam failing to win the French open. When the comparision is made to Sampras you have to see that Federer was able to win on ALL of the surfaces elite title, and Sampras fell one short. Thus, Federer is the best.

Even if the skill set is as good, (I assume that this is your own opinion), the entire game has changed. An MSNCB Sports writer says, "There is no resemblance between the game of the 1960s and 1970s and the game of today."{1} So comparisons between the past and the present are impossible, and therefore, determining the best player is impossible.

In addition, Federer is not as good one current player: Nadal. Federer has lost to Nadal in 9 out of their 15 matches. Writer Greg Couch summarizes, "You cannot be the best player ever if you can't beat your rival."{2}

Clearly, Federer is not the greatest of all time.

1}http://soundingoff.msnbc.msn.com...
2}http://tennis.fanhouse.com...

"Sampras, John McEnroe and others declared Federer to be the greatest player ever Sunday"
http://www.azcentral.com...
Even if we can't compare them, I think Sampras knows how good he is, and if he said Federer's better, we should probally go with that.
http://www.thesportstruth.com...
Micheal Stephens through intesive research lists Federer as the Greatest tennis player ever; Nadal wasn't even on the list of top twenty.
My argument on a Career Grand Slam goes dropped, the greatness of winning on every surface can't be denied.
Plus, even with all his acomplishments, Federer is still playing at the highest level: He'll win more.

Sampras himself admits that, "…you can't compare the eras…"{1} So, based on my opponent's source, my first contention still stands. The game is completely different now - different rackets, styles, and skill levels. This negates both the career grand slam and and winning on every surface.
Michael Stephens' article entailed no "intensive research." It is simply his opinion based on statistics, which cannot be reliably compared because of the implications of my first point.
The resolution states that Federer is the greatest player NOW, not that he will be at the end of his career.
We cannot compare the time periods, and Federer cannot beat Nadal; vote CON.

1} http://www.usatoday.com...