Originally Posted by Phoenix1983
If we discount clay there is not a huge variance between Fed and Sampras.
16 slams to 14 (7 Wimbledons apiece, 5 US Opens apiece), 19 slam finals to 18, 6 YECs to 5, 5 YE No 1's to 6.
We might give Fed a very slight edge but it would be debatable who is greater. The reason Fed is considered greater than Sampras is the fact that he is also great on clay.
Throw in the slowing down of courts to the mix. Roger lost two SF to Djokovic having matchpoints twice, in 2011 and 2010. If the US Open was as fast as it was during the late 90s, Roger would have had a great chance to win. Roger had to literally fight with guys 5,6 years younger than his age and his loses were very close. I guess Roger was bit unlucky when you consider the fact that Roger bagelled Novak 6-0 in Cincinnati, a fast court just five months ago.