Perhaps, John and Marina but there are other contenders (in men's tennis), I think.
The modern equipment has allowed him to continue to play top class tennis at 36 years of age.
That would be unthinkable with the old, wooden things that had a "sweet spot" the size of a penny. The shots played today were simply impossible with those racqets of old.
Borg's achievements were remarkable and he retired at 26. Another 10 years with today's equipment - who knows what he would have achieved.
McEnroe would have been a worthy adversary.
Jimmy Connors won more titles than Federer has currently.
Federer may well be the "greatest" male player - but was he the best?
In terms of "greatness" in tennis then Margaret Court will probably never be beaten.
24 Major singles titles, 64 altogether, more than 90% win rate.
What would these great players of old have achieved with modern equipment, dieticians, fitness gurus, psychologists, no money worries, first class everything.
That said, Federer's emotional response to winning today was a lump in the throat time for me as well (and I'm not ususally given to that sort of thing).
He is indeed a great player.......but the greatest?