I dont get this. Each year 2 slams are played on hard courts but only 1 on clay and grass. Now sure you HAVE to be great on HC to be the most successful player of all time but success does not mean "greatest" now does it? Why should HC be given more weightage in determining the greatest player of all time? I mean look at aggasi, if tennis wouldnt be played so pre-dominantly on HC then he wouldnt be considered among the greatest I am sure about that, he would have like 5 GS's if there was only 1 HC slam a year. Then look at the comparasion between federer and nadal. Federer's weakest surface seems clay(or atleast in comparasion to nadal's game) and federer has only been able to win one clay slam after many many attempts. Nadal's weakest surface is easily HC and that probably means that he has no chance of matching federer's GS record even if he manages to keep himself fit till a long time. Federer still holds all the records in the book despite having achieved not so much at clay. Nadal has already won a HC slam but guess what? He still has to win another HC slam to get that elusive honour of having won all 4 slams and he has to make sure it's the US open and not the australian. Whereas federer only had to win one slam on his weakest surface. Federer has 9 slams on HC, imagine how things would be if there were 2 clay slams every year and only 1 HC and grass slam? Nadal will prolly have like 9 slams and federer would be at like 12 or 13 at best. If nadal ends up his tennis with like 7 RG and 4 wimbledon then for me his GS performance is just as good as that of federer. Cant we see how unfair this all is? Trust me I am not here to undermine federer as much as it may seem, I am just interested to see what you guys opinions are. I just dont see how HC is anymore "better" than clay or grass cuz if you are giving it more weightage than that is exactly what you are implying. Sure the most successful players in the history of tennis with the way things are right now will have to be really great on HC but not necessarily to be the greatest. If the australian open ceases to be a GS or it shuffles it's playing surface every year, only then can we give as much importance to GS count as people seem to give it.