Originally Posted by zcarzach
Probably would have snagged a US Open as well, and maybe an Oz given his fitness and how slow the courts are.
I don't think he even took the AO that seriously. In today's slow surface game, which has just turned into a chase for the most Slams and #1 ranking, and private jets to get you to tourneys (thus reducing some of the burnout factor), he could probably have racked up 20 or more by age 27-28.
This also is why I am sonewhat skeptical of slam count as the best baramoter of "greatness." I think it's a combination of things including #1 ranking, slams won, depth of field, excellence across multiple surfaces (speed, etc), etc.
It seems pretty clear that the greatest allcourt players include Laver, Borg, and Fed in chronological order. By the way, I don't believe in GOATS but I certainly would never rank someone who wasn't dominant across more than one surface type as even being in the running for such an imaginary title.
Sampras and Nadal are a bit interesting b/c I think they both benefitted and have been lucky in a way to have the predominant court speed of their era suit their strengths. What if Sampras had played today...on today';s grass? What if Nadal had played in Sampras' era on the grass of that era. I think both would have suffered but the all-court players mentioned above were great great across all surface speeds. I really don't think Sampras or Nadal are in category of Borg, Laver and Fed in all-court dominance.