Originally Posted by Tagg
his problem was that he did not have the patience, the consistency of groundstrokes, or the sense of control in his game (that he had on grass, carpets and hardcourts)
that is why sampras did not win RG, simple
also, it should be noted that surface homogenization has played a VERY strong part in federer and nadal's domination and consistency across surfaces
the surfaces of the 70s, 80s and 90s demanded adaption. today's surfaces don't
olivier rochus did not win wimbledon because he did not have the height,and hence the serve. it's that simple. when they were juniors, where height didnt matter, rochus owned federer.
See how stupid that sounds? that's how stupid you sound too, making it sound as if it's not a big deal to lack patience. it's a skill that he lacks, so he is an incomplete player.
your point on surface homogenization is a poor excuse too. Edberg, Agassi, Lendl, McEnroe, Stich -- all of these guys were from the "heterogenous" surface era, and had their biggest successes on fast courts.. yet they all managed to do what your hero failed to do -- reach the FO final or better.
In short, Federer and Nadal won the career slam because they were that good (yes, better than sampras), not because of surface homogenization.