Originally Posted by hoodjem
No argument from me here.
(Sampras is certainly in my top-10 GOAT-list. But his paucity of clay-court titles prevents his higher placement, IMO.)
Absolutely Hoodjem. Personally, I think he's comfortably in the top 6 or so, if you include Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Sampras, and Federer in that top group of players, but I hear you on top 10 as you can make a case for some others being in the upper echelon. I like the idea of discussions as to how this concept is trending in terms of criteria. I think post-Sampras it has been very much about # of majors and it seems like that will be the primary focus. A holistic approach is the way to go in my opinion though, including consideration of who exactly each player faced at the top over time, versatility across surfaces, and level of play. The fact that players from past eras had to make huge adjustments due to surface differences and having to face a variety of playing styles is not immaterial. Basically, everything that is really important should be on the table. I've said it before, but if you could just count majors won, Emerson is ahead of Laver right? Well, if not, why? It's because you have to take other things into account beside just number of majors won. Thanks again for the thread.