Originally Posted by tennisbuck
It doesn't make sense? what has he done that federer hasn't? If someone argues that Fed isn't the GOAT and Laver is i have no problem with that. But how could it be Pete?
Sampras had all the qualities of a great player and was better on clay than people like to give him credit for. I'm sure he would have put forth more of an effort to win the French had he known how important it would be to his legacy. Roger on the other hand is great in the talent and stats department, but not so much when it comes to champion qualities when compared to a player like Pete. And it's qualities like that which determine ones greatness in the opinion of most.