Yeah...heavy topspin crosscourt forehands to the right handed player's backhand has a whole lot of complexity.
Go check the dictionary about what "complex" actually means.
This is similar to the logic that states Agassi had more of an "all round" game than Sampras...or that he was a "more complete player" because he (got lucky and) won the French.
He may have won the French and was a more accomplished clay court player than Sampras ever was...but there is no doubt in anybody's mind (anybody who has some tennis knowledge that is) that Sampras had BY FAR a more complete tennis game than Agassi ever did and ever will have in his life.
Agassi had one game plan. Nadal had one game plan (he IS evolving as a player though...his progress is very impressive and he is already more versatile than Agassi was) but STILL the likes of Sampras or Federer (especially Federer) have many more options/shots.
Dude, you've got to be joking. S&V is complex? Serve, go to net. Serve, go to net. Now Sampras had VERY UNDERRATED groundstrokes but that was his meat and potatoes just like Agassi had his return game and taking early cuts at the ball. Federer I can understand, he can basically do it all and has made 5 finals in RG, 5 in AO, 6 in USO, 7 in WB and has all the shots in the book. He is the complete package. But Sampras never made to a RG final. Not once. He was not that great on slow surfaces though he did have a couple of memorable clay matches.
Agassi, the best returner I've seen, had a game just as complex as Sampras if not more. Sure, Sampras is superior on serve and volleys, mentally too but if we are talking about groundstrokes I would have to give it to Agassi overall.
And succeeding on all surfaces does indicate a higher complexity in one's game, probably best seen in Federer.
Let's take just the big four:
AO - Agassi won 4 of these, Sampras 2. He managed to beat Pete in a slam here and Pete won those two when Agassi was not in the tournament.
RG - "luckily" won in 99' but made another two finals, losing when he was 20/21 to great CC'ers like Gomez(4 sets) and Courier(5 sets). Pete made no finals here.
WB - he was really out of his element in the S&V capital of the world at the time, yet he made 2 finals here, winning in five against ivanisevic(who had taken sampras out) in 92' and getting demolished by Sampras in 99'. This was Pete's home with 7 WB yet Andre managed one win and two finals overall at his most vulnerable slam.
USO - This is basically where the GS count and rivalry was decided. Agassi has 6 finals here, Sampras has 8, beating Agassi three times here. Agassi ended up with 2 USO and Pete with 5.
As you can see, Pete gained the bulk of his slams on the fastest surfaces out there at the time, WB and USO, he won 12 slams combined there. He only won two on the slower surfaces.
Agassi won slams on slower surfaces, 4 AO + 1 RG(but it could have been 2) and slams on the fastest surfaces, 1 WB(and he had guys like mcenroe,becker and ivanisevic on this fast surface to do it) and 2 USO(plus another 3 USO finals lost to one of the best HC'ers of all time and another against the GOAT).
Even if we look at finals, Agassi has 4 AO finals, 3 RG finals, 2 WB finals and 5 USO finals. It's 7-7 if we talk about fast vs slow.
Sampras had 3 AO finals, 0 RG, 7 WB finals and 8 USO finals. So it would be 15-2 fast vs. slow.
At the end of the day, Agassi could play on all surfaces well and even excelled on slow HC and clay(which was odd for an american). Sampras only excelled where he had fast surfaces. And you wanna argue that he was the more complete player? Let's say Nadal won 10 RG and 3 AO and wound up with 13 slams while Djoker won 3 RG, 5 USO, 2 WB, 3 AO. Who would you deem as the more complete player?
Let the **** war begin!
, but I don't really listen to either of their music.
. 
