FedEx places Sampras above Laver

[pj80]

From an interview with Barry Flatman in yesterday's Sunday Times Sport:

"As Federer begins his quest for a fifth consecutive Wimbledon title, natural comparisons are drawn with the deeds of Bjorn Borg, winner from 1976 to 1980. But Federer has established a stronger bond with Sampras, who holds the record of 14 Grand Slam titles and won the All England Club's cherished trophy seven years out of eight.

"In the same way he has established a rapport with Tiger Woods, Federer has begun to use Sampras as a sounding board. In the absence of a coach after sacking Tony Roche more than two months ago, the top seed knows that if he requires advice over the next fortnight, all he has to do is pick up his mobile. The pair formed their bond when Federer visited Sampras's California home in March before the Masters Series event in Indian Wells. They practised together for two days and explored each other's competitive outlook around the dinner table.

" 'We had a lot of time to talk', revealed Federer. 'The conversation centred around how it is for me and how it used to be for him. We were just comparing the mindset. Maybe it all gave me a sense of security because, for me, Sampras was the best player of all time. That is not to take anything away from Rod Laver, but when he won the Grand Slam, three of the tournaments were played on grass. Pete told me I was doing the right things and said he had a lot of admiration for how I handle things on and off the court. Having somebody like him backing me up made me feel good.'

"Sampras will be absent from Wimbledon again this year. The memory of being shunted to Court No. 2 for what turned out to be his last match at the tournament he most revered still rankles. Irked though he remains, he will be lured to his television to monitor Federer's matches after telling the man with whom he has so much in common - including a lust for victory and an apparent inability to win the French Open - that nothing would please him more than to see the Swiss beat his record of Grand Slam titles."

 

[sureshs]

Not surprising. What is common to Fed and Sampras that sets them apart from Laver?

Neither has won all the Slams!

Losers unite!

 

[fastdunn]

I really think Federer started to consciously pace himself (at non-slams final) and
try to peak at a right time( at slams ).
It's anyone's guess whether he was affected by Sampras on that one
but his play at non-slam events started to change coincidentally after
his visit to Sampras' place in early spring this year....

 

[CyBorg]

Of course he does. This way it seems less of a big deal that Pete never won at the French.

Ne c'est pas?

 

[sureshs]

And if diversity of surfaces was that important to Fed, Agassi did better than both of them, and Fed does not even mention him!

 

[rwn]

Of course he does. This way it seems less of a big deal that Pete never won at the French.

Ne c'est pas?

It is consistent with what Federer has always said. Wimbledon is for him by far the most important tournament. And Sampras has won it 7 times ...

 

[AAAA]

Maybe it all gave me a sense of security because, for me, Sampras was the best player of all time. That is not to take anything away from Rod Laver, but when he won the Grand Slam, three of the tournaments were played on grass.

But the constant has been clay at Roland Garros and grass at Wimbledon. Laver dealt with it, Sampras never did,and Federer is still working on it.

 

[AAAA]

what happened to the edit feature? I can't attribute the quote to Federer instead of pj80.

 

[carol4832]

Federer is doing the right things getting some tips from pete the legend. Both pete and andre have positive things to say about and good advice to give federer. Federer is smart to gain as much knowledge as he can gleen from the legends.

 

[Moose Malloy]

I wonder if Federer even heard of Laver before he turned pro. Or knew anything about him(lefthanded, one-handed backhand, his use of topspin, stuff like that)

This kinda sounds like someone saying Shaq is better than Wilt. People are always limited to their own frame of experience, nothing wrong with that, but it is what it is. I think pro tennis players have less of a sense of history than pro baseball, basketball, or football players, probably due to the fact that former players in those sports have more power post retirement(coaching, management, etc) than in tennis where when you retire, you are basically considered dead after a few years. many MLB pitchers who weren't even born when Koufax was playing still worship him, that would never happen in tennis, the players are just too shortsighted, maybe due to the fact they start so young & never have time to learn about the game while they master it.

 

[Virginia]

Didn't he model his forehand on Laver's? Of course he knew all about him well before turning pro!

 

[omniexist]

Not surprising. What is common to Fed and Sampras that sets them apart from Laver?

Neither has won all the Slams!

Losers unite!

Heh heh heh.

 

[ACE of Hearts]

Amazingly enough, Pete's idol wasnt guys like Mcenroe and Borg.His idol was Rod Laver.He used to watch film on him.The thing against Laver is the slams on grass.Can u imagine if that was still the case?Pete and Fed would have alot of slams under their belt.

 

[tricky]

Didn't he model his forehand on Laver's?

Pretty much. Federer idolized Sampras, that's pretty clear since he modeled his serve and his running FH after Pete. But mechanics of Federer's FH is basically Laver, even in how he varies spin and creates weird angles from the same swing slot. Fed's coaches were Australian as well, and he initially modeled his game in a classic style.

That said, sure, I think Fed's defensive about his lack of French Open success. He probably looks at himself as the 2nd best clay court player in the world, not the guy who repeatedly loses to the same person.

he players are just too shortsighted, maybe due to the fact they start so young & never have time to learn about the game while they master it.

Wow, I don't know if I'd make that kind of generalization. You're basically saying that armchair historians understand the game better than those who are the best 100 players in the world.

 

[Polaris]

I wonder if Federer even heard of Laver before he turned pro. Or knew anything about him(lefthanded, one-handed backhand, his use of topspin, stuff like that)

Peter Carter was an Australian. Yes, the chances are pretty high that he might have mentioned the Rockhampton Rocket over a mid-practice snack.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Didn't he model his forehand on Laver's?

i'd bet anything fed never saw any footage of laver playing when he was a junior. its not like that's easy to find anyway. the guy was born in 1981, I wonder if he's even seen an entire match with Borg.

Wow, I don't know if I'd make that kind of generalization. You're basically saying that armchair historians understand the game better than those who are the best 100 players in the world.

so you think the majority of top 100 has seen laver, borg, or mac play? or knows a lot about them? not sure how they could have considering their average age. They've never even hit with wood racquets. just because they are the best in the world doesn't mean they possess the knowledge of bud collins.
and I doubt they are reading bios on Lew Hoad or Don Budge during rain delays.
I'd love to see todays players try to answer some basic questions about the all time greats pre agassi/sampras, I'm guessing they wouldn't fare too well.

 

[tricky]

'd bet anything fed never saw any footage of laver playing when he was a junior. its not like that's easy to find anyway. the guy was born in 1981, I wonder if he's even seen an entire match with Borg.

That said, Fed's FH mechanics really are a lot like Laver's, if Laver started with modern WW style. Not saying that he went out and studied Laver, but it's not reasonable to think one of his coaches showed him a stroke or two and he kinda took to it.

so you think the majority of top 100 has seen laver, borg, or mac play? or knows a lot about them? not sure how they could have considering their average age.

Well, look, I've actually spoken with D1-level college players, and most of them have fairly strong and informed opinions over what they liked and didn't like about this or that classic player. I do see your point, but I think this is part of the impasse that you see between those who played at a very high level and the rest of us. The same exists with baseball fans, those who primarily rely on sabremetrics to evaluate players, and those who played at college or minor league ball.

That said, yes, I'd put Laver above Sampras. For me, however unfair the situation, you have to win all surfaces to be GOAT.

 

[babySuri]

Not surprising. What is common to Fed and Sampras that sets them apart from Laver?

Neither has won all the Slams!

Losers unite!

Laver is overrated. If 3 out of the 4 slams were on grass right now, federer would have tons more slams under his belt. They had it good back in the olden days...(you know, when you used to walk 5 miles to school and a loaf of bread cost a penny..)

 

[carol4832]

Did you see the snippet they showed where Pete and Andre we talking about Federer's game. They were saying that he was like a Chessmaster on the tennis court.

That was pretty cool, If Fed has Pete and Andre's Respect, since they were both masters on court as well.

 

[fastdunn]

But the constant has been clay at Roland Garros and grass at Wimbledon. Laver dealt with it, Sampras never did,and Federer is still working on it.

I don't think anything is constant, technically speaking.

In terms of varieties of surfaces (and their polarizations) in the era they played,
I think Sampras and Agassi dealt with most extreme polarizations in 90's.

But that does not mean we should put Sampras and Agassi over
Laver. It's just a one parameter to consider in GOAT equation.

This has been debated for almost 10 years now: "Laver would have
won over 20 slams if he were allow to play between 1965(?)-1969(?)"
VS "Sampras would have done same if 3 slams were played on grass"....

 

[VictorS.]

For people who haven't seen Laver play...this is a great video i found on youtube. keep in mind this video was taken in 1977 (laver was in his late 30s).

Borg v. Laver: http://youtube.com/watch?v=aLzbXvh64sY

 

[tennis_hand]

well, in Grand Slam record books, certainly Laver is untouchable.
But don't just look at the records. Laver era's Grand Slam is different from today's. Of course Laver himself, when interviewed, said winning all 4 is above everything, and winning 4 in one year is above doing so in different years.

 

[krosero]

Laver is overrated. If 3 out of the 4 slams were on grass right now, federer would have tons more slams under his belt.

The thing against Laver is the slams on grass.Can u imagine if that was still the case?Pete and Fed would have alot of slams under their belt.

The grass of the AO, Wimbledon and the USO was hardly the same, from everything I've read and heard. McEnroe was tremendously successful on Wimbledon grass. Why didn't he win even one Slam on Australian grass? Why did Wilander do so poorly at Wimbledon and so well at the Australian?

Hard courts are different, too. Sampras won five U.S. Opens, where Agassi never defeated him. But he won just twice at the Australian Open, never defeating Agassi there.

Slams may be played technically on the same surface, but the surfaces don't play the same.

But if you really want to consider Laver apart from grass of any kind, just look at his record on hard court -- the only surface that separates today's majors from those of his day. Was he any less great than his contemporaries were on hard court?

From everything I've read here and elsewhere, the answer is no -- he was great on all surfaces.

 

[Ripper]

"...Pete told me I was doing the right things and said he had a lot of admiration for how I handle things on and off the court. Having somebody like him backing me up made me feel good..."

"...that nothing would please him more than to see the Swiss beat his record of Grand Slam titles."

Yeah, right... Don't trust him Roger

 

[Bassus]

The grass of the AO, Wimbledon and the USO was hardly the same, from everything I've read and heard. McEnroe was tremendously successful on Wimbledon grass. Why didn't he win even one Slam on Australian grass? Why did Wilander do so poorly at Wimbledon and so well at the Australian?

Hard courts are different, too. Sampras won five U.S. Opens, where Agassi never defeated him. But he won just twice at the Australian Open, never defeating Agassi there.

Slams may be played technically on the same surface, but the surfaces don't play the same.

But if you really want to consider Laver apart from grass of any kind, just look at his record on hard court -- the only surface that separates today's majors from those of his day. Was he any less great than his contemporaries were on hard court?

From everything I've read here and elsewhere, the answer is no -- he was great on all surfaces.

Did McEnroe ever play the Australian Open when it was on grass? I've heard him talk about how he skipped it mostly because of when it was held, which used to be late December instead of its current early Feb. For many years, the Aus was sort of a bogus major. From hearing the commentators talk, it didn't really regain genuine grand slam status until the early 90s. Part of Wilander's success at the Aus was probably due to weaker fields. Even after the tournament's revival, Agassi didn't show up until the mid 90s. I think the same was true for Sampras as well.

Otherwise, you make some good points, but it would also serve to refute the 'Federer would have many more slams if the US and Aus Opens were still on grass' argument by pointing out that since Fed broke through at the 2003 Wimbledon, he has won all but one of the following US Opens and all but one of the following Aus Opens. In other words, he has dominated the US and Aus Opens almost as much as he has Wimbledon.

Federer has been phenominal since 2003. Since 2004, he has dominated men's tennis like no one else ever has, at least in the modern era. He couldn't have been much more dominant even if three of the four slams were still on grass.

Having said all of that, I don't reject the 'if three slams were still on grass then...' argument for Sampras, and I think it may very well become very apt for Federer too as his career goes on because I think he will find it harder to stay dominant on hard courts than on grass, just like Sampras did. But again, as of now the only sure way for Federer to have been more dominant is to have won a French Open or two. And I am of the opinion that he should have won it by now.

 

[armand]

I knew it. I found it very odd last year at the Aussie Open when Fed said Laver was his idol and stuff. Laver stopped playing before Fed was even born!

Sure Fed coulda watched Laver play on tape, but it's difficult to believe that watching old tapes is more inspiring than watching Sampras live, hearing about him on the news and other people in tennis discussing him all the time and just the general hype.

Fed used the same racquet, shoes and it's plain to see that he modeled his strokes after Sampras.

 

[edmondsm]

Not surprising. What is common to Fed and Sampras that sets them apart from Laver?

Neither has won all the Slams!

Losers unite!

They also played in a time when you got more than a hand shake and a t-shirt for winning a slam. Laver won two FO's and Samp didn't. But how much do you want to bet that Samp beat more pro's at Roland Garros than Laver ever did?

 

[danb]

Not surprising. What is common to Fed and Sampras that sets them apart from Laver?

Neither has won all the Slams!

Losers unite!

If 14 grand slams means loser don't look in the mirror.

 

[rwn]

The idea that you have to win all 4 the slams seems nonsense to me. That would mean Agassi is greater than Sampras who totally dominated Agassi. Ridiculous !!!

 

[krosero]

Did McEnroe ever play the Australian Open when it was on grass? I've heard him talk about how he skipped it mostly because of when it was held, which used to be late December instead of its current early Feb. For many years, the Aus was sort of a bogus major. From hearing the commentators talk, it didn't really regain genuine grand slam status until the early 90s. Part of Wilander's success at the Aus was probably due to weaker fields. Even after the tournament's revival, Agassi didn't show up until the mid 90s. I think the same was true for Sampras as well.

McEnroe played in 1983 and 1985, losing respectively in the semis to Wilander and the quarters to Zivojinovic. I don't give much importance to the loss in '85, one of McEnroe's poorer years, but the earlier loss is intriguing. McEnroe complained about various things at the tournament, I believe, including the slant of the court. Again this is why I emphasize that not all the grass-court Slams were the same. The turf was different; at least one court was slanted; the elements were different in all three places; you had to travel farther for some than for others, depending on where you were from; there must have been differing fields for each event, at least to a small degree; and the motivation to win each event would be different.

You mention that last factor yourself. Maybe Mac wasn't entirely motivated to win the Aussie Open in '83. Sure. Your opinion is that this was true of Sampras too, in the early 90s -- and I think we can all agree at the very least that Sampras' great ambition was winning Wimbledon.

So just how many more Australian Opens would he have won if it was still played on Kooyong grass?

And when you ask a question like that, you can't consider the Australian Open and its surface in isolation. The argument is that Sampras would have won a great many more Slams if three events were still on grass; that would have him winning two majors or even three majors in a greater number of seasons than he actually did. So the argument essentially means that he would have been a more dominant player, season in and season out.

But would he have dominated the field like that? It's always been hard at any time, even for the dominant grass-courters of any era, to sustain dominance over their peers throughout an entire season and then to do it in successive seasons.

I started a thread here asking why Wimbledon produces so many repeat titles:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=132091

It wasn't a long discussion but those who responded tended to believe that grass-court champions like Sampras can dominate Wimbledon like they do partly because grass is such a rare surface.

Well if 3 Slams were still played on grass, you would expect Sampras to have more, not less, world-class grasscourt specialists to deal with.

My problem with the "3 Slams on grass" argument for Sampras (without referring to you particularly) is that some speak as if all you have to do is multiply Sampras' 7 wins on Wimbledon by three to get his alternative total. What the argument needs is some awareness of the differences in grass turf, other differences between the three Slams, and some discussion of how Pete's competition, and not just Pete, would have changed or benefited from having three Slams on grass.

Otherwise, you make some good points, but it would also serve to refute the 'Federer would have many more slams if the US and Aus Opens were still on grass' argument by pointing out that since Fed broke through at the 2003 Wimbledon, he has won all but one of the following US Opens and all but one of the following Aus Opens. In other words, he has dominated the US and Aus Opens almost as much as he has Wimbledon.

Federer has been quite amazing in that regard. I believe he's been unique, in fact -- the first to win Wimbledon and the U.S. for three years running.

Having said all of that, I don't reject the 'if three slams were still on grass then...' argument for Sampras, and I think it may very well become very apt for Federer too as his career goes on because I think he will find it harder to stay dominant on hard courts than on grass, just like Sampras did.

Well Sampras already won 5 USO's on hard court. Just how many more could he have won if it were still on Forest Hills grass? The argument, I think, basically comes down how many more Australian Opens Pete would have won, which I covered above.

 

[caulcano]

From an interview with Barry Flatman in yesterday's Sunday Times Sport:

"As Federer begins his quest for a fifth consecutive Wimbledon title, natural comparisons are drawn with the deeds of Bjorn Borg, winner from 1976 to 1980. But Federer has established a stronger bond with Sampras, who holds the record of 14 Grand Slam titles and won the All England Club's cherished trophy seven years out of eight.

"In the same way he has established a rapport with Tiger Woods, Federer has begun to use Sampras as a sounding board. In the absence of a coach after sacking Tony Roche more than two months ago, the top seed knows that if he requires advice over the next fortnight, all he has to do is pick up his mobile. The pair formed their bond when Federer visited Sampras's California home in March before the Masters Series event in Indian Wells. They practised together for two days and explored each other's competitive outlook around the dinner table.

" 'We had a lot of time to talk', revealed Federer. 'The conversation centred around how it is for me and how it used to be for him. We were just comparing the mindset. Maybe it all gave me a sense of security because, for me, Sampras was the best player of all time. That is not to take anything away from Rod Laver, but when he won the Grand Slam, three of the tournaments were played on grass. Pete told me I was doing the right things and said he had a lot of admiration for how I handle things on and off the court. Having somebody like him backing me up made me feel good.'

"Sampras will be absent from Wimbledon again this year. The memory of being shunted to Court No. 2 for what turned out to be his last match at the tournament he most revered still rankles. Irked though he remains, he will be lured to his television to monitor Federer's matches after telling the man with whom he has so much in common - including a lust for victory and an apparent inability to win the French Open - that nothing would please him more than to see the Swiss beat his record of Grand Slam titles."

Another slant on it, is the fact that it will probably be easier to surpass Sampras' record than complete a calendar GS now.


In the end, I hope Federer will complete a career GS (I dont think a calendar GS is possible for him now) & surpass Sampras' record of GS wins. Thus becoming GOAT ... IMO.

 

[jhhachamp]

Laver is overrated. If 3 out of the 4 slams were on grass right now, federer would have tons more slams under his belt.

Oh really? How many more would he have? I don't see how he would have had tons more. He has won nearly every hard court slam as well since he started dominating, its not even possible for him to have won "tons" more slams, unless you think he would have won lots of slams before 2003.

 

[dh003i]

Moose,

I think Federer has a pretty good knowledge of the game; he's demonstrated an awareness of history. He probably has more of that than just about any other player on tour, but that's because he's chasing it, and it becomes important to know who he's being compared to.

You actually said that in the 80s, the only way someone was considered GOAT was by winning a whole bunch of Wimbledons (Borg), or the Grand Slam. That speaks to the importance of Wimbledon, which both Sampras and Federer valued above all else. For Federer, the French Open plays the role of the "final piece", so to speak. But I don't think it's necessary.

There are some superficial analysis' placing Laver as the GOAT. I'm not saying that there's no argument for Laver being GOAT. But by many, he wasn't even considered the best player of his times. There were guys like Gonzales and others, for example.

To say that winning on all surfaces is over-ridingly important is to place Agassi above Sampras, and that's just laughable.

 

[avmoghe]

To say that winning on all surfaces is over-ridingly important is to place Agassi above Sampras, and that's just laughable.

Give Agassi a *real* Grand Slam (4 in a year, or hell, even 4 in a row) - and yes, I definitely would place him over Sampras. IMO, 8 slams with a real Grand Slam would definitely have beat 14 non-French slams with mediocrity on clay.

Laver had not one but TWO real Grand Slams. It is not simply about winning on all surfaces - it is about winning all available Grand Slams , AND being exceptional on non-Grand Slam surfaces as well. And this is all after even being unable to play the slams for a large part of his prime years.

 

[CyBorg]

It is consistent with what Federer has always said. Wimbledon is for him by far the most important tournament. And Sampras has won it 7 times ...

Of course it is. Wink Wink.

4 Wimbledons.
0 Frenches.

 

[CyBorg]

Give Agassi a *real* Grand Slam (4 in a year, or hell, even 4 in a row) - and yes, I definitely would place him over Sampras. IMO, 8 slams with a real Grand Slam would definitely have beat 14 non-French slams with mediocrity on clay.

Laver had not one but TWO real Grand Slams. It is not simply about winning on all surfaces - it is about winning all available Grand Slams , AND being exceptional on non-Grand Slam surfaces as well. And this is all after even being unable to play the slams for a large part of his prime years.

2 things:

1) Agassi could never win a calendar slam or even come close.

2) Laver has ONE "real" Grand Slam, not two.

 

[avmoghe]

2 things:

1) Agassi could never win a calendar slam or even come close.

Yes, I'm quite aware of that. That is why "its laughable" to put Agassi above Sampras. My statement was a hypothetical illustrating that winning on all surfaces can and does come before pure slam count. Nadal can win 15 French Opens for all I care, he won't be the GOAT until he wins all the slams and shows dominance on all surfaces.

2) Laver has ONE "real" Grand Slam, not two.

So, just because a Grand Slam was pre-open era, it's not real? Does that mean you credit Laver with not 11 slam wins but only his open era slams?

In either case, it does not matter. Rod Laver's accomplishment 11 slams including both pre-and-post open era Grand Slams is the supreme acheivement in our sport. He won all the slams available to him, and was dominant on the non-slam surfaces available to him... in spite of being unable to play the slams for years in his prime.

Federer is going to need a real Grand Slam (or 4 in a row) to end the GOAT debate. I sincerely hope he does it.

 

[CyBorg]

Yes, I'm quite aware of that. That is why "its laughable" to put Agassi above Sampras. My statement was a hypothetical illustrating that winning on all surfaces can and does come before pure slam count. Nadal can win 15 French Opens for all I care, he won't be the GOAT until he wins all the slams and shows dominance on all surfaces.

I agree that showing dominance on all surfaces is key. Winning all the slams is not necessarily mandatory - particularly when looking back on the way players gave the Aussie the cold shoulder in the 70s and 80s.

So, just because a Grand Slam was pre-open era, it's not real? Does that mean you credit Laver with not 11 slam wins but only his open era slams?

I don't care how many slams Laver won. It's not a number representative of his greatness. For much of his early career he was not allowed to play in places like Wimbledon. Laver is one of the greats, but to truly evaluate his greatness you have to look beyond the slams.

Rod Laver's accomplishment 11 slams including both pre-and-post open era Grand Slams is the supreme acheivement in our sport.

It's not.

He won all the slams available to him, and was dominant on the non-slam surfaces available to him... in spite of being unable to play the slams for years in his prime.

I agree with this. He was the dominant player against the best competition possible in the late-60s.

Federer is going to need a real Grand Slam (or 4 in a row) to end the GOAT debate. I sincerely hope he does it.

I respect your opinion here, but I don't agree. Federer needs to show better results on clay for us to call him the greatest. If he beats Nadal at the French next year but loses, say, at the Aussie I would be ready to acknowledge his place as the all-time greatest. The Slam is for masturbators.

 

[tricky]

Really, given the turnaround between French and Wimbledon, the true test is winning both grass and clay in same year. That's greatness, and why I'm more comfortable with either Laver or Borg sitting at #1 with Sampras decidely third. In Federer's case, if he does that, he almost assuredly would win a Calendar slam.

 

[Alex132]

Not surprising. What is common to Fed and Sampras that sets them apart from Laver?

Neither has won all the Slams!

Losers unite!

lmao...loosers lol, find me a pro who never lost a game then call Sampras and Fed a looser.

 

[CyBorg]

Really, given the turnaround between French and Wimbledon, the true test is winning both grass and clay in same year. That's greatness, and why I'm more comfortable with either Laver or Borg sitting at #1 with Sampras decidely third. In Federer's case, if he does that, he almost assuredly would win a Calendar slam.

I agree here. I reiterate this here all the time - the back-to-back French/Wimbledon accomplishments trumps all. There is no greater accomplishment in tennis and it's the true test. Two utterly different surfaces require a dramatic shift in style all in a matter of two weeks.

 

[TheTruth]

I knew it. I found it very odd last year at the Aussie Open when Fed said Laver was his idol and stuff. Laver stopped playing before Fed was even born!

Sure Fed coulda watched Laver play on tape, but it's difficult to believe that watching old tapes is more inspiring than watching Sampras live, hearing about him on the news and other people in tennis discussing him all the time and just the general hype.

Fed used the same racquet, shoes and it's plain to see that he modeled his strokes after Sampras.

Ahh, but Fed is such a manipulator, isn't he? In the beginning he said Sampras, then he changed it to Becker, then he changed it to Agassi, then he changed it to Borg, now back to Sampras. He just wants to get the legends on his side to insulate his place his history. Funny, how he's always in the neighborhood to drop by and hit with them. Very shallow indeed!

 

[TheTruth]

The all four grand slam theory is the brainchild of John McEnroe. How gullible that people can't see that. Even though, they know Laver's grand slams were all on grass they still eat this hyperbole at will! The one poster made a valid point, that would mean Agassi's 8 is more than Sampras's 14 all because of losing one match in the semi's of the French. And now, Federer's 10 is greater than Pete's? It's not even worth debating with people who obviously can't think for themselves.

 

[35ft6]

That is not to take anything away from Rod Laver, but when he won the Grand Slam, three of the tournaments were played on grass.

Totally agree with this. And you would think there were less court specialists as a result.

 

[tricky]

Thing with GOAT is that there's not any just one major criteria.

Grass-clay same year is just very appealing because you have a better sense of the all-court versatility of a player's game. There's just enough time and not enough of a grass season to significantly reinvent your game. Even now, with the bounce and speed converging toward the middle, I think that is still valid.

As I've always said, the thing about Nadal is that he attacks the net more than Federer does at grass. And he's now trying to shorten his points through an efficient, accurate service game. His approach is admirable.

 

[Bassus]

Well Sampras already won 5 USO's on hard court. Just how many more could he have won if it were still on Forest Hills grass? The argument, I think, basically comes down how many more Australian Opens Pete would have won, which I covered above.

Yes, when I make that arguement, I am basically saying that Sampras would have won more Aus Opens.

I still think there is something to the argument, but you are probably right for the most part. I was wrong about Sampras' history at the Aus Open. He played it multiple times before winning it in 1994, and since he didn't break through at Wimbledon until 1993, then I guess there is no reason to assume he would have done so at the Aus Open even had it been on grass.