Originally Posted by Blocker
Well by that reasoning let's all go home. Bar Laver's double grand slam, Fed's achievements over all shadow everyone else. So why single out Pete? Why not single out Lendl, or Borg, or McEnroe? Or anyone else?
I think I know why. The one player Fed fans would not want to see their player play in a prime v prime match is Sampras. Wimbledon is the biggest show on earth, and against Sampras in his prime in the biggest match of the biggest show on earth, it could get very ugly for Fed.
And that's just the fans. What about Fed himself? He can accept the *** reamings he copped against Nadal at the FO, but facing PISTOL Pete on W Centre Court might just be enough to make the great Swiss cry...and that's before a ball has even been bounced. Note, prime Sampras, you know, 7 titles in 8 years...that Sampras, not well-past-it-Sampras.
eh, no ... borg has his triple FO-Wimby , tilden/gonzales were more dominant than sampras @ their primes, rosewall had amazing longevity etc ..
federer has almost erased every one of sampras' records ...he has almost nothing "unique" left ....
it would get ugly for sampras to face someone who could serve as well as return well and not choke - i.e. federer .... krajicek was returning well for 2 weeks and guess what he did to sampras in wimbledon 96 ?