Originally Posted by ctjpm
'Apparently you're not going out of your way to please me'
Definition of sarcasm is online.
I can't disagree with anything you wrote on Sampras, Laver missing twenty majors (his prime years) is another story entirely.
'did what he was best at, winning on clay.' Nadal also won on grass and hard.
Stats achieved by millionaire playboys do not help me sleep at night. I'm not bitter either, I just won't follow a crowd in forming an opinion.
I'm not as upset with Laver fanatics as I am with Sampras *****. I loved watching Sampras play but the most vocal Sampras supporters here have just gone nutty watching his records fall.
Nadal was able to win on all surfaces, but not to the extent of players like Federer (all other surfaces) or Djokovic (on hard courts). Federer picked up four of his seventeen slams before Nadal won his first. Nadal was there and Federer was still able to win slams. There is no denying that there is an age difference and their peaks occurred at different times. This often happens in tennis, which is why we should look at overall achievements.
Fed owned his own generation, which is really the most you can ask of someone. You can then look at how a player was able to hold on against the younger guys, and Federer has done pretty damn well with that, much better than Sampras.
I really don't want to be rude or give you too hard of a time, but it gets old hearing the same bad arguments as to why Federer isn't great. I don't care if you think he is the GOAT or not, as that is a much tougher decision, and personal feelings will play a role.