Originally Posted by Talker
When Fed had around 12 slams he was already compared to Sampras and some brought Laver up also at that time.
Those three were considered the best, with Laver having a 11-6 slam record.
Sampras had 14-4. Fed was 12-2.
At that time they were tier 1 with no arguments from Laver and Sampras fans for the most part. The only argument was who was at the top of tier 1.
Fed has accomplished so much more since then, enough to make a player considered great just on the records Fed has since that time.
Fed has accomplished too much since then to be in the same tier as Sampras and Laver.
How can someone add to his totals such a great amount,
4-5 more slams,
added weeks at #1,
more masters and WTF's,
a completion of the career slam
but still be in the same tier?
I'm with you 100%. The amount of Roger's achievements are good enough to separate him from the past legends by 1 tier.
It seem like when a player reaches Tier 1 great, he can't move up anymore, regardless of how many more years he continue to win.
But that's not how it works. Federer raises the bar, just like Usain Bolt did in sprinting.
Tier1(goat): Federer; Tier 1.5: Laver, Gonzales, Sampras, Nadal, Borg;
Tier 2: Lendl, Connors, Rosewall, Tilden; Tier 2.5: McEnroe, Agassi