Originally Posted by World Beater
You are wrong.
It was well-documented in the press that pete was chasing rod laver's legend and his all court prowess.
Sampras admitted in his auto-biography that he stopped caring / trying for the french, and that this was a regret of his.
Heart and balls are different.
Heart = When you get hit, you bounce back up and keep fighting. Persistency, perseverance...
Balls = Bravery, fearlessness.
It can be argued that Pete was slightly better in the latter, but in the former it is no contest. Federer is much better than sampras. Federer didnt need RG to pass pete sampras. He already was going to achieve more slams. But he didnt give up on winning RG. Yeah, he didnt beat nadal - but the objective of tennis is to win tournaments, not to have necessarily favorable h-h against everyone.
if that were the case, pete is also disqualified. he got annhilated by krajicek at wimbledon and never avenged his defeat there.
LOL..at the "AO afterthought"..did you follow tennis at all in the 90s? The AO was a big deal and was played by pete everytime he was fit.
Revenge didn't happen at Wimbledon because Krajicek never made it back to the final, but Pete eventually got his man at the USO.
Sampras v Krajicek in slams reads 1-1.