The record books prove that Roger Federer and Serena Williams have dominated their sport... while Arsene Wenger confronting the officials set a dangerous example

  • Roger Federer and Serena Williams took the glory at the Australian Open
  • For many, these latest wins confirm their status as greatest of all time
  • Arsenal boss Wenger's rage at match officials leaves them vulnerable
  • Football would benefit from a self-pass rule similar to hockey 

David Luiz 'adds to the gaiety of nations', you say? I'm struggling to comprehend what this even means. What is meant by the gaiety of nations? I will eat my hat and show my bum in Burton's window if that phrase has ever been used in a football context before. Suzy1234, Merseyside.

Now this isn't a request I often make of readers, but you may have to drop 'em, Suzy, and you're almost certainly out one hat. Let's start with a straightforward definition. The gaiety of nations is a term for general cheerfulness or good humour and has been around since the late 18th century when Dr Samuel Johnson used it upon the death of his friend, the great actor and theatrical figure David Garrick. 'I am disappointed by that stroke of death which has eclipsed the gaiety of nations and impoverished the public stock of harmless pleasure,' he wrote in his work The Lives Of The English Poets (1779-81). Since then, it has been in reasonably widespread usage including, you may be alarmed to hear, football writing. This, for instance, was my reply to a poster called Natalie from London, debating the end of financial fair play on this very forum on May 28, 2015. 'I once asked an Italian journalist how Italian clubs were funded when commercially and in terms of attendances, they could not compete. 'A very rich man picks up the ball and runs with it until he gets tired or the money dries up,' he said. I'm not saying it is ideal. But does it add to the gaiety of nations? You bet.' Of course, Suzy, you may think it unfair to prove the point, using my own work. So here's one of my favourite sports writers, the fabulous Marina Hyde of The Guardian, discussing the ill-fated Capello Index on July 21, 2010. 'The Capello Index, which has averaged an 82.09 per cent gaiety-of-the-nation rating since its glorious inception, should only be enjoyed metaphorically. As a tool for evaluating players it appears somewhere between crashingly obvious and the most frightful rot.' And this is Marina on the tweeting habits of Darren Bent, published August 5, 2009. 'Anyway if tweeting about needing the loo is good enough for Stephen Fry, which it unfathomably is, then we can probably cut Bent some slack. Stars behaving like this adds to the gaiety of their various nations.' But just in case you think it is only Marina and I locked in an assault on yourself, your hat and the sensibilities of Burton's passing trade, this from a Daily Telegraph profile of Watford manager Quique Sanchez Flores, dated January 13, 2016. 'It remains to be seen whether he can match the managerial success of Mourinho or Arsene Wenger or even Manuel Pellegrini in this country but he has, to misquote Dr Johnson, certainly added to the gaiety of nations and enriched the public stock of harmless pleasure.' I rest my case. Your move, Suzy. Five points up next, after this – the relevance of which will be explained later.

Chelsea's entertainer David Luiz certainly adds to the 'gaiety of nations' in the Premier League

Chelsea's entertainer David Luiz certainly adds to the 'gaiety of nations' in the Premier League

Point one: About football, and hockey's self-pass rule

I fully agree with your point about the self-pass being used in football, Martin. Hockey is my sport and it revolutionised the game. It is quicker, with no timewasting and allows the advantage to go to the fouled team. I would also introduce rolling subs. There is nothing more annoying than the slow trudge from the far side of the pitch in the 88th minute. Sub in play and this wouldn't happen. Steve1000, Nottingham.

Sounds like a really good idea. Surely, Martin, you can put it in front of people that matter? You have a popular newspaper column - you appear regularly on television, and you know all the other journalists. Maybe you can suggest the self-pass rule? Sonicboom 208, Southampton.

I'm flattered that you think my influence so great, Sonic, but I've been banging on about self-pass free-kicks to no avail since I first saw them introduced in hockey in 2010. Click here for what I wrote on February 17, 2010, having watched a match between Reading and Beeston to see how the change worked at the highest level. Equally, rugby also has a self-pass rule with tap and go restarts. I really cannot see the argument against it, except that innovation in football is glacial, as proven by the fact La Liga is still without goal-line technology. I can't see why the substitution process cannot be speeded up either, Steve. If not full-blown rolling subs – although they work at junior level – then certainly something quicker than exists currently.

Sam Quek in action for Great Britain's Olympic gold medal winners - the self-pass restart has been a feature of the sport for a number of years

Sam Quek in action for Great Britain's Olympic gold medal winners - the self-pass restart has been a feature of the sport for a number of years

Point two: Roger Federer versus Rafa Nadal

To say Federer is the greatest of all time is nonsense. The equivalent would be to state a boxer who consistently lost to his two closest rivals was the greatest as well. Federer's record against Nadal is very poor, 9-3 down in Grand Slam matches and 23-12 behind in all meetings. Fact: Federer isn't even the greatest of his own era. Nadal and Novak Djokovic have that title. Throughout the years Nadal has consistently beaten him, yet Federer wins their first Grand Slam meeting in nearly ten years and suddenly he's the greatest again. Give over. Look how many majors Federer has won since Djokovic, Nadal and Andy Murray have been on the scene. The majority of Federer's slams came before the other big three came on the scene. SAFC3, Sunderland.

For me, Nadal edges the greatest ever because 12 of Federer's titles came before Nadal even turned 21. His first big victories were against the likes of Andy Roddick, Lleyton Hewitt and Mark Philippoussis and only four of his titles came against Nadal or Djokovic. By contrast, however, Nadal won ten of his 14 titles against Djokovic and Federer. The level Nadal has faced over the years along with his injuries, especially in 2009 when he was at his peak, robbed him of many more titles which is unfortunate. Mag1994, Manchester.

Federer has more weeks at number one than either of them and has won more Grand Slam titles. Djokovic only led his head to head statistics once Federer had turned 33, and only won three Grand Slam titles against him once Federer turned 30. Before 30, Federer led Djokovic 14-8. Miles Nicholas, Mansfield.

Federer dominated the sport at number one for 302 weeks, compared to Nadal's 132 weeks. As far as head to head records are concerned, Nikolai Davydenko has a winning record against Nadal over the course of 11 matches. It does not mean Nadal was the inferior player. Muaaz Tariq, Lahore.

I started watching tennis around the time Björn Borg came onto the global stage and I tell you he was unbeatable. He made the mistake of retiring very early in his career and could definitely have won more titles. He is the only player I would compare to Federer as the greatest of all time. Mike, Portsmouth.

The problem here is that to justify Federer's No 1 status is to seem to diminish the achievements of the others, in the way some on here are misguidedly diminishing Federer. So let's get one thing straight. Nadal is a great player; Djokovic is a great player; Murray is a great player. Bjorg was a great player. We'll begin with him, then. Mike, in Portsmouth, I think what you mean is that you started watching Wimbledon when Borg came onto the scene because, back then, there was no satellite or cable television, no specialist sports channels and we barely saw the other majors. That is why the winners of Wimbledon – like Bjorg – have such a hold on us. We recall Jimmy Connors as magnificent, Ivan Lendl less so – but both have eight Grand Slam titles. The difference is Lendl never won at Wimbledon, Connors did, twice. The same with John McEnroe and Mats Wilander, who both won seven Grand Slams. McEnroe made a huge impression here with three Wimbledon wins, Wilander drew a blank on grass so is not given the same credit. So, yes, Borg was a wonderful player. But he never won the Australian Open or the US Open. His 11 titles comprised five at Wimbledon, and six at the French Open. He did not win a Grand Slam outside Europe.

As for Federer's record against Nadal, this also requires context. Nadal's support is based on clay and, often, the French Open. Federer leads Nadal 2-1 in their meetings on grass and 9-8 on hard court surfaces, but trails 13-2 on clay. Similarly, of Nadal's 14 Grand Slam titles, nine were won at the French Open. So he is 9-1 up on Federer in French Open wins, but at the other Slams Federer leads him 5-1 in Australia, 7-2 at Wimbledon and 5-2 at the US Open. And why is it only Federer's 'era' when Nadal, Djokovic and Murray come along? What happened to the 'era' before that? Federer dominated it and has then held his own against the odds with this younger generation, too, the era widely described as the greatest of all time. Despite being significantly older, of his 18 Grand Slams, seven have come against Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. Indeed, he has beaten Nadal in Grand Slam finals as many times as he defeated Philippoussis, Hewitt and Marat Safin put together. He has beaten Andre Agassi, and Djokovic, so spanning many generations. And yes, Djokovic has the jump on him, head to head, in major finals now – but all of his three victories came in 2014 and 2015 with Federer nearing the end of his career. It is entirely disingenuous to talk of Djokovic's time as Federer's 'era', when he was by then at an age when many great players had already retired.

As for injuries, I'm afraid that's part of the sport. One aspect of being a great champion is staying fit and to award Nadal a raft of titles had his body held up, is to ignore this. Instead, you may be interested in some stuff that actually happened. Federer is the first player to win five or more titles at three different Grand Slam events, he holds the record for consecutive weeks at No 1 and total weeks at No 1, is the oldest Grand Slam champion in 45 years, has the longest winning streak in the open era on both grass and hard courts, reached a record ten consecutive Grand Slam finals and is the only player to reach five or more finals at all four Slams. I think that'll do. 

Roger Federer underlined his status as the greatest of all time when he beat Rafa Nadal in the Australian Open final last weekend

Roger Federer underlined his status as the greatest of all time when he beat Rafa Nadal in the Australian Open final last weekend

Point three: Serena Williams versus Steffi Graf and, inexplicably, the world

Williams is one of the greats but the achievements of Federer are better because the men's game is so much stronger. There are certainly no players of the quality of Amelie Mauresmo, Lindsay Davenport, Mary Pierce, Kim Clijsters and Justine Henin to give her a run for her money. BobW, United Kingdom.

So, Steffi Graf gets an asterisk but Williams doesn't? How does that work? There has been no other women's tennis player in Williams' time who has had enough consistency, excepting perhaps Henin, who retired early. Williams has never had a Joe Frazier or a Nadal snapping at her heels for years. She rose up as all the greats were falling off – Martina Navratilova, Graf, Davenport, Martina Hingis – and she's been steamrolling everyone ever since. You measure your greatness against how powerful your opponents are, and she's had a relatively easy ride. Who else is there – Maria Sharapova, Victoria Azarenka? Do me a favour. Bernie Bayou, Madrid.

Your argument seems slightly flawed. Graf, in your opinion, isn't in the greatest because of Monica Seles' withdrawal, as it left her with no top-level challenger. Who, then, has been Serena's main rival during her time? Perhaps Venus, but then she's had illness to deal with and a marked decline following her 2011 diagnosis. But better than Federer? I don't think so. Yes, Federer has never owned the game like Williams has, but that's because of the unusually outstanding level of competition. Also, Graf would have won many more than 22 singles Slams, had she not retired at 30; the fact that she won 22 by that age merits just as much praise as Williams winning 11 Slams as a thirtysomething. DJBurnToast, London.

Let's just dissect this utter nonsense. Samuel believes that the achievements of the best player from the women's game - that has a small drip compared to the men's ocean-sized grass roots pool - is better than those of the best ever men's player. The fact that she, in Grand Slams, is only on court for a fraction of the time that the men are, that the level of play is substantially lower on all levels, that the strength in depth of the women's game is alarmingly poor, that the wear and tear on the men's bodies is far greater, he chooses to overlook. I am not a hater – however trying to compare men's and women's achievements is ludicrous. Why doesn't he compare her achievements with other women? If they are not directly competing with one another any comparison between the sexes is merely nodding in the direction of political correctness. Big fish, small pond. T.Carter, London.

Got there in the end, though, didn't we? You posted multiple times on this subject, but in the end the mask slipped it came down to the fact you couldn't bear to see a female name attached to a list of great men. I didn't even say Serena was better than Federer, just put her in the same company. But I see where you are going. Serena can stay in her little ladies ghetto, but don't mention her beside Jordan or Nicklaus or Ali or Federer, in case our precious masculinity is threatened. And how do you know sport isn't as physically demanding for women? Ever tried playing at a high level while losing blood, or coping with complex hormonal change? No? Well, if you know any women, you might want to ask them about it; or better still read the passage in Laura Trott's book in which she discusses in lurid detail the effect track cycling has, you know, down there. She speaks of lacerations so bad she was unable to even shower, and makes plain that her problems were standard, not exceptional. So don't pretend you know that female athletes are under less strain physically; because they aren't, and you don't.

Anyway, moving on to all those rivals who would have put Serena Williams in her place if only they hadn't hastily retired or kept losing to her. Let's start with Graf. They only played twice but in their second meeting, Williams won 6-3, 3-6, 7-5, in the final of the 1999 Indian Wells Masters. Williams was unseeded and ranked 21 in the world at the time, but had already beaten Davenport and Pierce in the same competition. That year, Graf stepped away, saying she had done everything she wanted in tennis – a wish list that probably didn't include spending her later years getting beaten by a younger, fitter, better player.

Next up, Hingis who as Bernie from Madrid – well informed as ever – tells us was 'falling off' just as Williams arrived. Why this would be is a mystery, however, as Hingis had turned professional just 11 months before Williams and is less than one year older than her. It is funny, how all these great players decide to suddenly pack it in as Williams comes to prominence. For the record, Hingis lost their only Grand Slam final meeting in straight sets, and never reached a Slam singles final again. She also lost their last three matches, taking only one set, and their last game was in Miami in 2002, which Williams won 6-4, 6-0. She didn't 'fall off', Bernie – she threw herself off because the game was up.

Who's next? Mauresmo got a mention, didn't she? Well, Williams leads her head to head 10-2 (1999-2008). Pierce - Williams leads 5-1 (1997-2005). In fact, Pierce took two sets off her in her entire career, at the Indian Wells Masters in 2000; and of their last six sets against each other Williams won three of them 6-1. Lindsay Davenport, Williams leads 10-4 (1997-2005). Kim Clijsters, Williams leads 7-2 (1999-2009). So Henin is the only one who came close, Williams only leading 8-6 head to head. The one time they met in a final, however, at the 2010 Australian Open, Williams won 6-4, 3-6, 6-2 – and four of Henin's six wins were on clay.

Serena Williams again showed she's head and shoulders above the opposition by beating her sister Venus to win the Australian Open in Melbourne

Serena Williams again showed she's head and shoulders above the opposition by beating her sister Venus to win the Australian Open in Melbourne

Point four: About Arsene Wenger's touchline ban...and Rob Holding

The Football Association set the bar too low back in 2012 when Alan Pardew only got a two game ban for pushing a linesman. Wenger's actions were not twice as bad, yet his ban is double. Gobo32, Blackpool.

There appears to be a concerted effort to derail Arsenal by the Daily Mail, making a meal of non-stories to paint them negatively. Wenger made a mistake in the heat of the moment and apologised immediately after. It is not wrong to plead your case. Other repeat offenders have got away with lesser punishments. Mr Samuel, you clearly have an anti-Arsenal agenda, and the dig at Holding was completely unnecessary. John Holmes, Kuala Lumpur.

You wrote: 'In a competition he rates so highly he starts Rob Holding.' You don't rate Holding, just because he's not some expensive superstar defender? Every time Holding has played he has done well. Wenger rates him, which is why he bought him, and he clearly rates the FA Cup because he has spoken time and again about its importance. Someuser, North London.

Wenger probably deserved more than just a four match ban. However, the dig at Holding was uncalled for. Sidd7689, Bangalore.

So let's clear this one up, first off. It wasn't a dig at Holding. It was an observation that the first game of Wenger's ban was an FA Cup tie, and its status in Wenger's priorities could be seen by the selection of Holding, a player that last started a league game for Arsenal on August 26 when a lot of defenders were missing. I really didn't think I needed to walk everyone through it like five-year-olds, but here it is. Did Holding start against Watford last night? No. Was he even among the substitutes, despite being part of a defence that kept a clean sheet at Southampton? No. There you go. Holding's selection is a marker of priority. There was no dig. Nor is there an anti-Arsenal campaign at the Daily Mail. A bit daft to start the campaign after the punishment has been handed down, don't you think? And you won't find a word from me about Wenger and the linesman until that point. I wasn't at the match and didn't comment in the aftermath, so can hardly be accused of making a meal of the incident. John, that you think it a non-story that a manager pushes an official either shows your bias, or your foolishness. I merely think the punishment leaves officials vulnerable. Anthony Taylor had a steward to helpfully step between him and Wenger that afternoon; but what about over the park on Sunday morning? Who protects the referee from physical confrontation then? That is why, as inconsistent as it may seem, the high profile cases have to attract exemplary punishment. You're right, Gobo – Pardew's two game ban was weak. Having made a mistake, however, precedent shouldn't condemn the FA to keep repeating it.

Rob Holding was handed a rare Arsenal outing in their 5-0 FA Cup win over Southampton

Rob Holding was handed a rare Arsenal outing in their 5-0 FA Cup win over Southampton

Point five: about drummers

Never heard of Al Jackson, Martin? Lucyhilt, Hull.

Oh, Lucy, behave. After last week’s digression in honour of the late, great Jaki Liebezeit of Can – ‘a sentient drum machine’, you may recall – Lucy here thinks I’ve somehow forgotten the man known as ‘The Human Timekeeper’. Albert J. Jackson Jnr, of Booker T and the MG’s. That was him on the magnificent Melting Pot earlier, for those that wisely pressed play. Great man, Al Jackson. He gets a writing credit on Respect and Let’s Stay Together, and worked with everyone from Otis Redding to Jerry Lee Lewis. Died in very mysterious circumstances at the age of 39. So, yes, I’ve heard of him Lucy. Heard of him, play him, love him. But have you heard of my other favourite drummer? Karl Burns, formerly of The Fall. Here’s him doing his finest Jaki Liebezeit impression. If you like it kept tight, you won’t be disappointed. Until next time.