Less than 48 hours after Novak Djokovic, the only man in the modern era to hold all four Grand Slams at the same time, had been knocked out of this year’s Wimbledon Roger Federer was asked one of those fawning press conference questions that are designed to get their object on side and chatty.

In football, it was put to him, there is discussion about whether Diego Maradona is the greatest of all time, in motor racing discussion about whether Michael Schumacher is the greatest of all time, but in tennis there is no discussion, how do you feel about that?

The winner of more Grand Slam tournaments than any other man in the Open era, who has set all sorts of records for competitive consistency and longevity in those events, needs no such ego stroking. Four years since he last won one of those titles he continues to give the impression of being wholly at ease with both his status and within himself, much as, for example, Pele has always tended to, unlike the aforementioned Maradona.

“For me there is clearly a discussion, because we'll never quite know anyways,” he replied before, in spite of clearly being surprised by and unprepared for the question, embarking on a deeply intelligent explanation in his second language of why it is impossible to compare eras, by noting the impact on great careers of the transition between amateurism and professionalism.

“The Grand Slams are getting somewhat more important over time, more players traveling to all the Slams, not skipping Australia anymore,” he continued.

“It's all changed in the last 25 years, I'd say.

“Before they also had different rankings, which was an average ranking over the tournaments you played, so you wouldn't play on your weak surface. Now it doesn't matter anymore, just the best 18 tournaments count.

“So it's changed in tennis over the years. It makes you play differently in different types of tournaments throughout.

“Obviously today probably we chase more the records than they used to in the past (which) keeps us on tour longer. I think we're doing more to stay more injury free.

“There's so many guys that did so many great things. Some were unbelievably young when they achieved some great things, some were on the older side when they achieved great things.”

“Yeah, then there's streaks and stuff. Whatever you look at, I think it's a very open debate.”

In the course of that off-the-cuff answer he showed his exceptional knowledge of his sport, the different challenges that have faced his predecessors as the greatest champions of their day.

Rod Laver, for example, won two calendar year Grand Slams, yet only 11 in all during a career in which he missed many of them because he had turned professional before the sport went open at top level. Yet even in his own era he could not match the longevity of Ken Rosewall who played in Wimbledon finals in 1954 and 1974, never won the sport’s greatest title, but won all three of the others more than once, eight in all and was similarly affected by that battle for the right to be paid.

Long before their time the likes of French musketeers Rene Lacoste and Henri Cochet won seven majors apiece including all three Northern Hemisphere titles, back when travel to Australia took six weeks by ship. Immediately after them England’s Fred Perry was first to win all four, among his eight titles, but then there was Don Budge, the only man other than Laver to win a calendar year Grand Slam, but who turned professional in 1938 immediately after completing it, at which time he had won a record of six successive Grand Slams which stands to this day.

More recently Bjorn Borg dominated at Wimbledon and the French Open before retiring ridiculously young, but his claims are undermined by never having won a Grand Slam outside Europe, while Pete Sampras, record holder for most Grand Slam wins before Federer, was unable to adjust his game to French clay.

As to Federer’s contemporaries, his head to head records with both Rafa Nadal and Novak Djokovic favour the other and both have also completed career Grand Slams.

That they occupy three of the top four slots in terms of accrual of these titles when they have been competing against one another can meanwhile be cited as evidence of this being the sport’s greatest ever era.

However, as Federer also alluded to, that may merely be down to modern fitness and conditioning regimes, while a case could be argued, if not with much conviction from this quarter, that the way they have collectively dominated is evidence of a lack of competition in the men’s game for the past decade and more.

The comparisons are, of course, as futile as they are fascinating but Federer may be peerless in his capacity to achieve great things and offer such intelligent, objective analysis while still doing so. Discuss…