Except Sampras couldn't win the French either. In fact, Sampras was flat out wimpy in the French vs. other tourneys and overall on clay vs. over surfaces. In the French, no finals even, only reached semi's once, only reached quarters 4 times out of 13 appearances, overall 24?13 French Open record and 90?54 on clay overall.

Meanwhile the ONLY thing that's stood in the way of Federer possibly winning 4 French Opens in a row is Nadal, who is arguably one of the greatest clay players of all time (31-1 at French Open, 179-16 on Clay hmm? Since 2005, 153-8 with Fed being 2 of his losses). Fed lost to him 3 Finals in a row, then won against Soderling after Soderling handed Nadal his only ever French Open loss. Fed's all-time French Open record is 39?10, all time clay record is 139?42, with his record since 2003 on Clay being 100-16, with 9 of those losses being against Nadal. Federer's clay performance makes Sampras' clay performance look amateurish.

You can't ignore that Federer has had a more well-rounded skill than Sampras, who sure was certainly talented other than his serving and volleying but who would not have been dominant without those skills paving the way. The funky thing is if you watch Federer especially over the last couple years, with a much less flashier serve (barely ever over 130 MPH), he's able to get mad aces on people because of his incredible placement. If Sampras's power + Federer's placement would probably be the most dominant serve ever.

Yes, a "well" Nadal has the jump on Federer right now overall given the last finals wins he's had on Fed in Wimbledon and Australian...only time will tell if Fed will get the jump back on Nadal once Nadal is back at 100%, but if you were to take out Fed's clay record against Nadal, Fed actually still leads 5-4 on grass and hard courts despite those last 2 final losses to Nadal. Keep in mind Fed started '08 with mono so it wasn't exactly him at his best that year and his results showed that. And Nadal did beat him in the Wimbledon and Aussie but had to really work for both wins.

Next year will be a really interesting year if Nadal hopefully gets back to full speed. Consider the likes of Murray, Djokovich, Del Potro, Verdasco and Roddick all steadily improving right behind the two. Who knows - Fed/Nadal may cease to be dominant as soon as next year. Keep in mind that Sampras may not have had the equipment players have now, but he didn't have to contend with the physical conditioning that top echelon players have today either...Nadal for instance is a freakin' machine that can wear down anyone and some of the aforementioned players have pretty big endurance.

Where things are at now: Federer continuing the way he is is the greatest player of all time UNLESS Nadal starts dominating and becomes the greatest of all time...UNLESS one of those aforementioned steps up and starts dominating big time, etc. It's hard to argue against Fed right now unless talking about a Rod Laver, though it'd be hard to compare them (Laver obviously EXTREMELY dominant for a number of years, but Federer is at about the amount of years of Laver's dominance and is continuing to rack up the numbers). I'm not sure any other names could really enter the mix right now. I think even Sampras himself would concede that Federer has overtaken him in all-time accolades and thorough dominance even if he is troubled against Nadal.

What a badass shot!

maybe she's a nice person and he loves her?

man, i'm happy that not everyone out there just goes for the looks of someone. and i wish you a happy life with a good looking but shallow person

Best player ever

How do you beat someone like that?

looks like he is loosing right now..

Ask Del Potro.

And Federer needed Nadal to be injured and out of the way to win. Great

And yet again, Sampras faced much better competition in a better era.

What do you mean wouldn't have been dominant without those skills? That's like me saying Federer wouldn't be dominant without his forehand or backhand. This is their skills and this is the different eras they played in.

Unfortunately, "taking things away" is not how this discussion works. By your logic, if you take away grass and hard court, Federer has NEVER beaten him. See how that works? At the same time, Nadal beat Federer at Federer's own game...Twice....Federer has yet to do the same to Nadal.

Other than Nadal and Del Potro, the other players you have listed don't have the mental toughness to compete with these 3. I don't see Federer and Nadal being broken up by anyone other than Del Potro.

Laver won a grand slam in one year. Bjorn Borg won 11 damn grand slams by 25. Pete Sampras played in what was arguably the best era in tennis and won 14. Federer is unable to dominate Nadal.. There's very many arguments against Federer being the greatest.

Where? WHERE?

Del potro for the win!!!
:banana:banana:banana:banana:banana:banana:banana :GFYBand:rainfro

I read that and all I see is

yeah but

yeah but

yeah but

yeah but

Why is it that the people who don't think Federer is the GOAT have to be so argumentative? It's all opinion, it's FINE if you think Sampras is the best. Nobody can answer who's the best until everyone in contention is retired, but then there'll be another phenom tearing the court up at that time and it'll make it impossible to answer.

Opinion, opinion, opinion. And by the way, you should not kick Andy Murray out of the mix. Boy can play some ball, and when he figures out how to get out of his own way, he's a serious contender.

From my point of view, you can´t compare Federer with Sampras. Federer is much more player. This mother fucker play soooooo easy, sooooo natural. Nobody is the history of tennis makes to see this games so easy.

Nobody in the history of tennis has had it as easy as Federer had, until Nadal came along.

Wow, amazing shot!

good shit, federer is still apimp

it was just an observation-looks aren't everything clearly-and if you only go for someone's looks-yep you are shallow
your comment is not entirely fair-celebrities, star athletes, musicians, actors, etc. put themselves in the spot light and are fair game for this sort of harmless gossip talk
it's unfortunate that tone can't be ascertained on a board....
:2 cents:

Wow, Federer for the win!

Tougher era bollocks, that is always said in every spot the "oldies" always had it tougher. Yes he had worse equipment but so did his opponents. I think Sampras himself has said Federer is the greatest of all time.

Crazy for him to hit the "tweener" at that point in the match. Even crazier that he hit the passing shot with it.

Except there's actual evidence that the level of play in the 90s exceeded anything until Nadal and Federer began their rivalry.

Please post the evidence as well as backup on the measurement criteria.

That idea that Federer had only weak opponents before Nadal is what confirm that Federer is so good. The distance between he and the rest of players is so big that NONE though that playing tennis in that way were possible, and he does it in times where the speed of the game is huge.

Those who really have a sense of the tennis history say that Federer is the number one of the modern age, no doubt about that, hard to find someone who really know about tennis (and play it, of course) who can say the opposite. Those who knows so much about tennis history say that Federer could compete with Rod Laver for the best of the history, but of course no Sampras.