http://sport.scotsman.com/tennis.cfm?id=1846412007 I don't see why Pete has to be so insecure. He is one of the tennis greats, his legacy lives. Yet he is always condescending in his opinions of Roger's achievements- he always seems to praise Roger, but adds a caveat that implies that Roger has it easier now ("tougher" competition during Pete's time, lack of S & V players, etc.). I don't understand how S & V tennis is an guaranteed recipe for success. It is true that players don't S & V now - but they have become that much better at the baseline. The more he shoots off his mouth like this, the more I lose respect for him. Some one posted this at http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A26834592: Couldn't agree more!