French and Wimbledon are considered as the most difficult double in tennis? Considered by whom? To be considered the best ever, i am sure you'd have to be capable of performing in more than one surface CONSISTENTLY! While growing up, indeed, bjorn borg and Stephen edburg along side, boris becker were my idols. However, you are not doing justice to Federer by claiming Bjorn borg to be best ever when he hasn't won neither US nor the Australian Open ( and i read somewhere, US open used to be played in clay courts during his era). As you see the history of the last 15 years or so, most of the french open winners have one dimensional games. Carlos Moya, Thomas Muster and now Nadal to name a few, though Nadal seems to be an exception that can play in other surfaces. Roger Federer, 26, has already won Three consective US opens, four consective wimbledon and 3 australian open in last four years and i don't think he's that far behind in conquering the French open. 10 grandslams in three different surfaces when one hasn't reached his pinnacle, might not make him the best ever, but certainly makes him the potential to be the best ever by a mile. When I started watching him, i wasn't his greatest fan, but he truly is a poetry in motion and the poise and gracefulness he carries himself on and off the court is just remarkable. I beg to differ with you loote bro, that Roddick, Nadal and Hewitt are not as strong as players of caliber of connors and lendl in Borg's era but rather, Federer is just wayyyyyyyyyyyy toooooooooo goooooooood than his contemporaries and that Roddick, Nadal and Hewitt are unlucky to be borne in the wrong generation to be competing with Federer :). Of course, my strict personal view only!