Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Smooth Operator
Also a big Agassi fan
By the way, pretty sure Andre said that he felt Fed was better than Pete. That opinion is good enough for me. Believe Fed whipped a somewhat diminished Sampras on the court too.
The only case that can be made for Pete now that Fed has the career slam is that, in general, he probably had to face tougher competition.
Borg was clearly a great clay and grass-courter, but Mac and Jimmy exposed him in NY.
Gotta read some more about Laver, but the fact that he won the calendar slam twice is super impressive as it's clearly one of the most difficult things to achieve in all of sports.
|
The competition thing is always speculative. Not saying I dont agree with it, because in Pete's case, I do. But Nadal is every bit the player that anybody Pete had to play. I would compare him with Agassi. Djokovich is no slouch either, on his best day he can be compared with a Courier...I wouldnt go as far as putting Djokovich with Edberg or Becker but hes not bad.
Roger has a lot of creampuffs he routinely beats like Roddick, Blake, Soderling, etc...but then again so did Pete.
At the end of the day I just dont see how a case can possibly be made for Sampras over Federer. Even if Federer stopped playing today, and thats not going to happen. Realistically, Federer will have 6-8 more majors than Pete by the time this is over and is a much, much better player on clay. Not even close.