I had a thought watching Sampras and Federer play. Sampras made the match very competitive although I think Federer may have thrown the second set. Federer hit some cutsey shots that I don't think he would have tried had the outcome been in real doubt. However, Sampras has won one and I think that may have been legit as it was on a fast indoor carpet. That's exactly the kind of surface that Federer isn't used to and the kind that was fairly common back in the good old indoor circuit days. But, that brings up a series of matches that I've seen. In 1969, fresh off his Grand Slam, Rod Laver played Pancho Gonzalez who was very much past his prime and lost. Some years later, Rod Laver very much past his prime played Bjorn Borg fresh off his French and Wimbledon victories on green clay. Borg lost. There are many who say the game continues to evolve. I don't doubt this. But, many of these same people say the game gets better. Does it really? When great players of just ended eras play great players of the current era and are not only competitive, but beat them, isn't that an indication that great is great and that great back then would have been great now? I think so.