View Single Post
Old 01-21-2013, 01:15 PM   #45
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,440

Because anyone that saw him play at his best knows that he was virtually unbeatable. There are accomplishments, where Federer arguably stands alone, and then there is level of play. Personally, I think Fed's best level beats Pete's best level, but others disagree. If they're right, then Pete might be the greatest. I think that's how the argument would go. (I don't buy the strength of competition argument because I think Fed would have dominated Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Stich, Agassi, Courier, Bruguera just as Pete did, or to an even greater degree.) Ultimately it's all just opinion anyway. I mean, how the hell would I know that Fed dominates Becker?
corners is offline   Reply With Quote