Comments on: Soderling’s Zone Versus Federer’s Perpetual Zone: Two Historic Records at Stake

By: Kara B. Clevinger

Kara B. Clevinger — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 13:13:16 +0000

The “greatest of all time” moniker should not be built on indirect wins, yes, but I would hate to see it rejected just because Fed didn’t have to play Nadal to win a French Open title.

By: Joe Samuel Starnes

Joe Samuel Starnes — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 12:30:23 +0000

I don’t see how the greatest of all time can be built on indirect wins.

By: Jo Anne Starnes

Jo Anne Starnes — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 16:25:02 +0000

Good analysis, but I think Soderling, who doesn’t seem to move in the same realm as the others, may hang on to the tree for one more upset.

By: Kara B. Clevinger

Kara B. Clevinger — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:36:27 +0000

If Federer wins on Sunday, IF Federer wins, I think that too many people will hang that question mark over his head–did he win because he didn’t have to play Nadal? And if the question of whether he is the greatest player of all time is dismissed because he didn’t have to beat Nadal to finally win a French Open title, then that’s a shame. Federer has reached the final, Nadal hasn’t. Federer has already beaten Nadal! And if he wins against Soderling tomorrow, then by the transitive property, Fed beats Nadal again: if Federer > Soderling and Soderling > than Nadal, then Federer > Nadal, and Federer = greatest of all time.