Originally Posted by Roddick85
I'm always surprised to see how little respect Pete Sampras gets on these forums. People, before Wimby 2009, Pete was still the record holder in terms of total slams count. So what if he didn't win the french open? In his era, they're was an actual difference in how clay/grass/hard courts played unlike today's homogenized surfaces. The speed of the surfaces was much greater back then as well. Would he have as much success today compared to the 90's? For sure the court speed would cause a few hiccups in his game, but your nuts if you think he wouldn't win anything. He'd easily be in the top 3 imo. The guy had talent and was all about offense. I find myself going back quite often to classic Pete matches thanks to ESPN classics and i'm always impressed with his game. I wish they were more players like Pete today instead of defensive players like Djoko, Nadal, Murray.
If all surfaces play the same then how is it that Nadal is so dominant on clay yet not anywhere else? Homogenization is overstated IMO.