Originally Posted by rajah84
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.
His idol was Rod Laver whose most celebrated accomplishment was winning Calendar Grand Slam (twice) so disagree, I'm sure Sampras wanted the FO and knew it's importance, he just wasn't good enough on that surface.
Also Fed wouldn't be so great in the "stats department" if he didn't posses a lot of champion qualities himself, talent alone is not enough to achieve so much in the game.