I was watching ESPN's advantage Luke Jensen and he said he doesn't consider Federer to be the best of all time. Also he doesn't think he's the king of wimbledon. According to him Federer needs to do a "calendar" grand slam 3 times to become the greatest ever. Also he needs to win 8 wimbledons to be considered better than Sampras at Wimbledon. I don't agree with this, I think if Federer finishes his career with the most grand slams he should considered the greatest of all time. If he wins a French Open along the way then it should be definite however at this point it looks gloomy for Federer at the French. What do you guys think of Luke Jensen's comments?