: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:27 pm  

Snake Eater wrote:

laver didn't win 15 grand smal titles.

Federer has won more

What would be interesting to see would be the number of majors won compared to the number of majors played in.

If a bloke has won 15 majors out of 75 entered, is he as good as bloke who won 8 out of 8?

Personally I believe Federer is the greatest. The game is very different than it was forty years ago and Laver would have been buried into the ground by everyone today purely on the basis of the power players now hit the ball with.

Sampras might have a genuine shout at being the best ever grass court player, but his records elsewhere did not compare with those of Federer.

I often wonder how many majors Bjorn Borg would have won had he entered the Australian and not retired at the age of 26. I'd like to see his percentage record in majors compared to the others.

: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:32 pm  

sampras never even got to a final at roland garros, that will stop him being one of the true greats, although his record is amazing, he just never performed on clay, every other surface he excelled at though.

: Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:19 am  

Lord_Percy wrote:

Federer doesn't have the grand slam, Laver does. Twice. Winning the grand slam is the ultimate achievement as a tennis player, so does that mean his achievements out-score Federer's greater number of wins at the majors?

Using just 1 measurement can lead to faulty results, when other data is available.

Of course it's all conjecture and at the end of the day it's down to personal opinion.

Whilst I agree it is some achievement but by doing the grand slam it only means you had 1 good year (possibly). Federer's (and Sampras') achievements give far more weight to a 'greatest of all time' tag having been over so many years.