I have to say it's a complete toss up on who really is the best player ever. In Pete's era, he had to deal with the Spanish Armada of clay court players -- and he had Jim Courier and Andre there as well. Sure Federer has to deal with the greatest clay court threat in the history of the game -- Nadal, but Pete had a whole army of pretty freakin' good clay courters he had to deal with. For example: Alex Coretja, Carlos Moya, Felix Mantilla, Alberto Berasategui (who doesn't remember his crazy super-western forehand where he hit his forehand and backhand with the same side of the racquet!), Sergi Bruguera ... and I am leaving a HEAP of players out, but you folks get the point. Federer had the greatest clay courter of all time to get around, Pete had an Army of solid/great clay courters to play through. So, it's pretty clear that Pete may have had a tougher time because of the quanitity/quality being greater then. BUT, I cannot say with certainty that Federer would not have made it through the slew of clay courters at least once. This is an argument because of the difference in eras. There were a lot more solid players in Pete's day, but Federer is most likely going to crush Pete's grand slam record, hell he just tied it. So, I just don't get why people are trashing Pete, trashing Federer, trashing Andre -- they're are amazing players. Pete's serve and clutch play -- Federer's all round silky smooth game -- Agassi's return game, these are players that should all be respected and counted among the greats. Just my 2 cents.