No more Fed Greatest Ever Garbage-- Pete is

For the first time ever...I will fully agree with SMAN1965.  Federer came in a time when he played no-body.  So from his Inauguration into the sport he has won not having to play any serious seasoned competition.

Sampras came into the league having to play seasoned #1's and other stiff, soon to be great competition.  And then after the learning curve, was dominating.

Federer's past competition has been youth.  Young 17-20 year olds.  But, now they are maturing in the sport and we are seeing the result.  He is losing regularly.

I don't think Federer is a truly bad tennis player, just not the greatest.  Even if he bests Sampras with 15 majors, it wasn't the same skilled seasoned competition.

But, I still like Big Mac.  He was great entertainment and awesome tennis player.

To pooh pooh Federer's accomplishments while saying Sampras is the best ever is utter nonsense.  Federer has won 3 majors in a year three times, while Sampras never did.  Roger has won Wimbledon 5 times in a row and the US Open 4 in a row.  Pete never did that as well.   I think we are overrating Sampras's overall opponents while underrating Federer's.  Why is it that someone dominates over a 4 year period (04-07) winning 11 majors, 2 Finals, and 2 Semi Finals finishes, has a record of 99-5 in those majors (total of 16),  and is now horsesh!t.  I'm not buying it is because of lesser competition that Federer has amassed his victories.  I'd argue that the guy is just plain that much better than everyone else in that period.   Is it because he has lost in 2 finals to the #2 player and a Semi Final to the #3  player, this year?  Was Federer not ill this year?  No respect.  He is 12-4 in major finals with the 4 losses to Nadal who just happens to have won 4 French Open's in a row and won an incredible match this past weekend for his 5th major.  I'll give you that Nadal has his number.  Federer is now 2-4 against him in Major finals.  I think that hardly qualifies Federer as Nadal's biich.   But Roger has some work to do. 

Sman, still waiting for an explanation on how Pete can be considered the greatest with an awful French Open record.  At least Federer has 3 Finals to his credit, while Pete's is one Semi.   I too miss the mostly  serve and volleyer, but those days are gone.  You are not going to win on a consistent basis playing that way in today's game.

Federer is 26, has 55 ATP wins, 12 majors .   At this point he is a little behind Sampras (64 and 14), but a little ahead at the same age and is definitely one of the best ever at this time.  I don't think either is the greatest ever, but Federer has some tennis left in him.  He has the chance to be recognized as the  best ever.   Anyone who does not accept that is a moron.  Again, he has some work to do.  Overrated?  Hardly.  Lets wait to see the total resume when his career is over.

You did a good job talking about how good the guys were that beat Federer. Why don't you talk about the guys Federer beat to win his 12 majors. Crappola. Roddick, Gonazales, Baghdatis, Soft hitting washed up Hewitt, Clay court specialist Nadal who has no serve. That's why Sampras is so much better. He won 7 Wimbledon's and 5 U.S opens against TREMENDOUS competition not dogsht that Fed's been beating.

Finally a young player like Nadal develops into a great player and completely owns Federer, the FRAUD. REmember, no one OWNED SAMPRAS, PERIOD! And Fed is now Nadals property. So learn the game and think for yourself. Don't listen to McEnroe who is paid to hype the game and it's current top players. Reality is Fed beat sht comp and it's no wonder Pete played Fed even in 4 matches at age 36, 6 years removed from the game. He's simply a much, better player. Deal with it.