Getting to two French finals and losing to probably the greatest clay courter in the history of the game...that right there puts Fed above Pete in my book. Pete got to ONE semi-final in all those years and got dusted by Kafelnikov
Roger has a better slice backhand, a better topspin backhand. He moves even better than Pete. He returns serve better than Pete. He hits better angles on his groundies than Pete.
Even Andre clearly indicated that he thought Roger had the edge.
Pete had the greatest serve in the history of tennis. And he was incredibly clutch. That's the biggest reason he won 14 slams. But, overall, Roger is the more complete player. (Roger simply has a little more talent in his hands than Pete and is a bit more explosive and agile. To me, these are the top two players of all time. But Fed is the best, there's no question in my mind)
Roger has a better slice backhand, a better topspin backhand. He moves even better than Pete. He returns serve better than Pete. He hits better angles on his groundies than Pete.
Even Andre clearly indicated that he thought Roger had the edge.
Pete had the greatest serve in the history of tennis. And he was incredibly clutch. That's the biggest reason he won 14 slams. But, overall, Roger is the more complete player. (Roger simply has a little more talent in his hands than Pete and is a bit more explosive and agile. To me, these are the top two players of all time. But Fed is the best, there's no question in my mind)
