Right. Actual Slam count can be heavily circumstantial, that is, dependent on factors outside a player’s general play in between the lines of a tennis court. Lendl for example is a 12-15 Slam talent by all other metrics but was cursed with his worst surface hosting 2 Slams (and then not even playing the AO for parts of his career), and his best surface hosting zero. To say nothing of his competition which is another crucial factor obviously.
When I say talent I’m not really using the amorphous term with “little fingers” and that which is usually ascribed to Kyrgios or Rios the showmen. I mean when Becker put the performances on the court that won him Slams, measured, distinct levels, they were up there with what Sampras did. Not as good, yes, but comparable at the very least. It’s just that a) he was slightly worse as a tennis player, and thus susceptible to varied opponents (their H2H vs Agassi a stark differentiator) and b) he was much more prone to off court distraction, fitness issues, injury, and generally struggled with consistency in ways that the spartan-like Sampras was not.
But of course tennis is the most merit based sport on the planet, you usually win what you win because of your play and your play alone. So the gap is deserved, however, 6 of Becker’s best Slams stand up next to 6 of Sampras’s Slams is the larger point I’m making.
Of course, there are those among us who believe tennis only evolves and that talent continues to grow so maybe everyone even the Big 3, Sampras, and Borg, is less “talented” than Sinner and Alcaraz and now Fonseca and Mensik. So it is a sliding, subjective definition. And who knows maybe Sinner actually is that good and will continue to improve into the finest player tennis has ever seen. It’s not impossible.
Greater future awaits you.
