Ahh backhouse M I said Federer and SAMPRAS serves. Not­ Nadals as that is a different topic altogether. Lets­ stay wrih Federer + Sampras. The point is when you­ slowed down Petes serve on clay he was average (not­ rubbish but average) lots of low ranked players who he­ would obliterate on grass and hard court were able to­ dispatch him with relative ease on many occasions on­ the clay. However when Federer's serve is slowed he­ is still a formidible player is he not? beats everyone­ still apart from Nadal on clay. Sampras might as well­ of been ranked out of the top 20 when it came to clay.­ This is the point I'm making. Federer has things in­ his game Sampras never had. Pete himself said this­ after their exibition matches. Roger has shot making­ skills he never had. Peter boomed his serve and smashed­ back the return on the volley. Hardly Rogers style is­ it? Too much about Power and thats why so many people­ were saying Federer was the best years before he won­ the French open backhouse M. Swap the serves and Pete­ would lose out while Roger would arguibly gain. I use­ this as an example of Federers superior Tennis skills.­

Also for the record Roger is 27 and not 28 as you­ wrote Please check your facts.. Borg quit in the face­ of being regularly beaten by Connors and McEnroe. Once­ they caught up with him and eneded his dominance he ran­ away basically! Did Roger quit after Wimbledon or the­ Aussie open. I don't think Borg was as good as­ McEnroe all round but thats another argument.

Again­ with Laver he said he never had the all round shot­ making skills of Federer. You can compare by watching­ the tapes! also players from all eras say Roger is the­ best they have ever seen! I really think your in­ denial by the way! honestly mate i really do. That­ includes Nadal, Murray and Djokovic by the way??

Again, all well ans good. you bring up good point­ again. the reason i see significance in nadal winning­ slams at 3 different surfaces is because Nadal is in­ the same era as Federer. Nadal has beaten Federer to­ win all those different slams. When you talk about­ serve, well Federer is no slouch when it comes to aces­ and service winners either. No its not as good a the­ Sampras serve but it certainly wins him a lot of points­ and gets him out of trouble. What about Nadal, it can­ be argued in terms of relativity he doesn't have a­ good one. He doesn't rely on a serve as much as­ Federer yet he has been so successful. Remember­ Wimbledon final 2007 - Federer needed his serve then to­ retain his title didn't he? That is all to combat­ your argument, but we have to accept that the serve is­ part of the game. Imagine how successful Nadal would be­ if he had Sampras's serve. on the Borg argument yes­ he lost US open final 4 times but it was not his best­ surface just like clay is not Federer's and he won­ it at 28 and Borg retired at 26 so he could have still­ won it. 11 slams at 26 without hardly competing at one­ of the 4 slams is significant. with regards to laver,­ that is why i've said i don't like to compare­ different eras, who knows how laver would have done ina­ different one. all we can go by is the success that he­ had at the time. It's all ifs and buts and i know­ you highly rate and respect the thoughts of other great­ players and even if i look at things a little bit­ differently, i can see where you are coming from.

Before you go Backhouse M a few points if you would. I­ think you attach too much significance to selective­ elements and fail to see the big picture. Eg when you­ said

Federer being the best also has flaws such as if­ he was­ then why was Nadal able to win on all 3­ surfaces at­ slams before federer

Well using Becker as­ an example by the time he was 18 he had won 2 Wimbledon­ titles. Federer wouldn't do that until he was 22.­ The question is so what? who turned out to by far the­ better and most successful player? You attch too much­ significance to things like that backhouse M. Also like­ I said Sampras was not as good as you like to believe.­ As I have already demonstrated when you slowed down his­ serve he was an ordinary player. You certainly­ can't say that about Federer . You cannot seriously­ say at this time Nadal is the all time great as he has­ won only 6 slams and not a single U.S open yet.

Let me­ futher demonstrate to you how Sampras is not as good as­ Federer. if you swapped their respective Serves would­ Sampras have been as successfull? Without that huge­ booming serve he would likely not have won as many­ grand slams (particularly Wimbledon) Federer on the­ other hand it could be argued would be a better player­ with a much faster and more powerfull serve. Maybe with­ it he would have beated Nadal last year and at the­ Aussie Open.

With regard Borg what you forget or do­ not know is that is that he reached the U.S open 4­ times! Never winning it. Lost twice to McEnroe and­ Connors repsectively. Lost to McEnroe at Winbledon too.­ He retired in his prime. However many thought it was­ cowardly as rather then trying to improve his game and­ compete with the players mentioned he just quit. That­ is a big reason why no-one mentions him in greatest of­ all time category. Again with laver as has been said­ they did not hav as many matched to win a slam, alot­ less players on tour and did not play on all surfaces.­

Players from all eras mentioned say Federer is the

still don't know what subjective is do you? yes i­ can disgree with Agassi and not mean i am right and he­ is wrong. they are opinions and therefore there is no­ right and wrong. only what i think and there will be­ some who agree and others who don't. simple as­ that. i've said before that i don't like the­ idea of comparing eras as there as so many complicated­ elements in doing so and whatever decision you make­ there are still pros and cons. this is proven by my­ opinion of Sampras being the best, reason being is­ because i feel due to his game when at his best he­ would win. of course this has flaws as others have­ shown, don't dispute that. at the same time,­ Federer being the best also has flaws such as if he was­ then why was Nadal able to win on all 3 surfaces at­ slams before federer? then i'm sure you'll say­ about Sampras not being good on clay. you see there are­ so many counterpoint to this argument. Nadal being the­ best potentially is possible, if you look at it from a­ different perspective in terms of success like you have­ with Federer (i know you've talked about his all­ round game as well - a respect that). it's such a­ complicated question with no real answer - it's all­ a matter about interpretation and as i've said­ there are still going to be flaws. also consider what­ if borg never retired early as well as if he actually­ competed at the Australian open each year. what if­ laver was able to compete more? it's a never ending­ cycle which is just a bit of fun to discuss - we know­ there is no real destination. don't want to waste­ any more time on this. you can if you want but it­ won't be with me - find someone else to argue this­ with. but i hope you take something out of this, not by­ means of changing your opinion because that would­ contradict everything i've said. just to understand­ why it is such a complex question that doesn't have­ a true answer. Bye now.

Such ignorance from people. Like Tyrone said there­ should be a test people should take before they are­ alowed to comment on this site.

Cliff S allow me to­ pick a hole in your argument. Boris Becker was far­ more successfull and had won ALOT of grand slams when­ he was just 23. Much much more then Federer. Tell me­ who has more grand slams now? Just because your­ successfull when your young does not mean it will­ always be that way does it?

Also many of those titiles­ Sampras has won are rubbish worthless titles that mean­ nothing, Do you know how many non grand slam winners­ have won those tounaments multiple times. It's all­ about the slams I;m afraid as that is where the best­ shines. Also Federer has many years to go yet but that­ record is not worth anything. Also being number 1­ isn't all that. How many times was sampras number 1­ for a few weeks then knocked off by Courier, Agassi ,­ edberg , rios etc. He couldn't hold it very long­ apart from 1 or 2 occasions. Sampras was rubbish on­ clay. How would have coped when grand slams were onlty­ grass and clay? Federer woild still have been­ successfull.

Also a GOAT is a farm animal ok?­ It''s also a stupid American saying too. Lets­ not dumb ourselves down by using that stupid word from­ those redneck yanks deternined to dumb down the english­ language.

Also Backhouse M technically if you disagree­ with someone you are saying they are wrong ok? By­ definition you can't both be right if you have­ different views to Agassi. therefor you are saying­ Agassi is wrong and you are right? After what I have­ written how can say that?

Also you have not said who­ you think is the greatest player yet?why not?

let me­ guess Nadal when he has finsihed his career? lol if you­ say Sampras or Laver!

good points cliff s.

Fed we can safely say is one of the greatest tennis­ players ever. And we can safely say he is the best­ player due to his all around skills.

For the moment­ at greatness he is slightly above sampras. If he wins­ one more slam. Gets to number one 70 more weeks. Wins­ 60 more titles then I guess he has that GOAT as­ well.

And not if Nadal has anything to say about it. 6­ GS and just 22. He is ahead of Fed if we put them at­ the same age.

doesn't matter does it Kanespurs. youv'e­ already made your mind up that have an different view­ is to say everyone else is wrong when i've said­ enough times that i'm not saying i'm right,­ just not convinced. being blown out of the water is­ only going to be seen by those with opinions similar to­ yours. if it means i'm foolish to some that­ don't know what subjective is then so be it,­ couldn't care less. all that should matter to you­ is your opinion now because going round in circles is a­ waste of time. i think we should just let this one go­ and move on. if you believe in your opinion that should­ be all that matters to you, don't worry about what­ i think just like i won't worry about yours­ (although i respect your argument). Bye.

To Tyrone100smith1979, nicely put mate!! wow you know­ your stuff I'ii give you that. Completely blew­ backhouse m serve and volley argument right out of the­ water!! (bet you feel foolish now don't you?) on­ top of showing up Sampras as he really was (too much­ about serve on grass and hardcourt unlike Federer) I­ did forget though how well Hewitt did agaisnt the best­ serve and volleyers at the time. So backhouse M you­ still haven't said who you think is the best? Go on­ then do tell us?? if you've got the guts

Also as a­ final reminder Andre Agassi played Edberg, Becker,­ Courier, Ivan lendl (who has been to 18 grand slam­ finals winning 8) Chang, McEnroe and Connors! ­ (including Sampras thats at least 50 grand slams won­ between them, maybe more I can't be bothered to­ check)

He also played Pete Sampras 34­ TIMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What has did say about Federer­ though?

'Federer is the greatest player I have­ ever played against!

Wow how can you argue with that?­ You cannot get a more informed opinion then that! Not­ to mention Agassi isn't too shabby either winning­ the Career grand slam and all.

If you say Laver then­ you need to be certified as there was what 8 players on­ tour in his day lol. Also they didn't have all the­ different surfaces of today. Played less matches to win­ grand slams and oh yeah Laver said Federer was the­ greatest back in 2007.

Well backhouse M what do you­ say to that? Still have an informed opinion or do you­ admit your ifoolish for going against facts and Tennis­ legends. It would be manly and refelct well if you­ admit you were wrong. By saying you don't agree­ with Agass you are saying he is wrong and you are­ right.

again, as before, praise to you for giving relevant­ argument. This is what i like to see on here. there­ will always be holes for different points of view in­ this area and glad that you are thinking about it.­ Federer is the most successful, no doubt and it is easy­ to see why so many believe he's the best. Yes,­ i'm not saying i'm right as i'm aware that­ facts shows a case both for and against. i just have my­ doubts, that's all, and would love to have seen­ them in the same era. i'm sure this sort of­ argument would have took place if Federer and Nadal­ were in different eras. don't want to argue with­ you on this anymore and completely acknowledge what you­ are saying. just want to make it clear Federer is a­ great talent and if people think he's the best­ there is a mass of reasons for it that i will not deny.­ his legacy is secure no matter what now so it'll be­ interesting to see how the next few years play out in­ the men's game. what are your opinions on Andy­ Murray by the way, because there certainly seems to be­ a divide amongst the fans?

At the request of kanespurs I have come back to this­ conversation. Backhouse M with all due respect I­ don't think you really know what your are talking­ about. Yes it's likely if Sampras was in Federers­ era then Roger might have won less slams. However what­ you forget is that the reverse is true also. In fact I­ would say Pete would win alot less slams with Federer­ in his era then vice versa. With regard the serve­ volley debate I think you are living in a fantasy­ world. There is a reason it has faded. It's easier­ to play against. Does not matter how good you are.­ Hewitt is case in point here backhouse M. He beat­ Sampras on grass twice at the Queens club. Including­ the year 2000 when Sampras won Wimbledon. He also­ destroyed him at the U.S open in 2001 7-6 6-1 6-1.­ Sampras was not finished because he won the U.S open­ the following year. Once Hewitt had upped his game end­ of 2000 he beat sampras 4 times in a row and has a 5-4­ record against him including 2-1 on grass. Also Tim­ Henman ( a very decent serve vollyer) considered by­ some to be the best volloyer at that time (not serve­ and volley) was regularly dispatched by Hewiit with­ ease. Has a 9-1 record including a 4-0 record on grass.­ Pat Rafter a VERY VERY good serve and volley player­ was beaten 3 times by Hewitt in his prime and only­ managed to beat him once.

It is true Federer was a­ serve volley player in the juniors. Is it any wonder he­ changed his game after what Hewiit did to the best­ serve volleyers on tour? That brought in the era of the­ baseliners as the dominant force in Tennis. Backhouse M­ while you may have slightly more knowledge then some of­ the idiots who post here you ractual knowledge of game­ is sorely lacking I'm afraid. That is evident from­ your posts.

At the request of kanespurs I have come back to this­ conversation. Backhouse M with all due respect I­ don't think you really know what your are talking­ about. Yes it's likely if Sampras was in Federers­ era then Roger might have won less slams. However what­ you forget is that the reverse is true also. In fact I­ would say Pete would win alot less slams with Federer­ in his era then vice versa. With regard the serve­ volley debate I think you are living in a fantasy­ world. There is a reason it has faded. It's easier­ to play against. Does not matter how good you are.­ Hewitt is case in point here backhouse M. He beat­ Sampras on grass twice at the Queens club. Including­ the year 2000 when Sampras won Wimbledon. He also­ destroyed him at the U.S open in 2001 7-6 6-1 6-1.­ Sampras was not finished because he won the U.S open­ the following year. Once Hewitt had upped his game end­ of 2000 he beat sampras 4 times in a row and has a 5-4­ record against him including 2-1 on grass. Also Tim­ Henman ( a very decent serve vollyer) considered by­ some to be the best volloyer at that time (not serve­ and volley) was regularly dispatched by Hewiit with­ ease. Has a 9-1 record including a 4-0 record on grass.­ Pat Rafter a VERY VERY good serve and volley player­ was beaten 3 times by Hewitt in his prime and only­ managed to beat him once.

It is true Federer was a­ serve volley player in the juniors. Is it any wonder he­ changed his game after what Hewiit did to the best­ serve volleyers on tour? That brought in the era of the­ baseliners as the dominant force in Tennis. Backhouse M­ while you may have slightly more knowledge then some of­ the idiots who post here you ractual knowledge of game­ is sorely lacking I'm afraid. That is evident from­ your posts.

oh, and don't assume things about me and act as if­ they are fact. i don't just watch the odd tennis­ game here and there, i watch the whole tour every year.­ plus, i'm not so casual in that i watch the ball go­ back and for. i analyse what the players are doing and­ why they are able to win their points.

he passes sever and volleyers with ease simply coz they­ are not good enough. Baseliners will always have to­ work a bit harder for their point so the returner will­ have more opportunities to break than against serve and­ volleyers who are any good. there are no good serve and­ volleyers anymore and the game has changed which is a­ shame. to do the serve and volley game, you've got­ to be great at it, like Sampras and Mcenroe were. Not­ arguing that Federer can't play on all surfaces and­ if that's what you want to base the greatest on, no­ problem. just think that Federer's tally of slams­ on hard and grass would not be as big if Sampras has­ been in his era. Again, if you think Federer's the­ best OK, make your case for it and move on. Enough­ attacking already - it's not going to change­ anything, it's actually quite petty.

Meant to write at end of last comment have you not seen­ the way Nadal passes serve vollyers with ease?

Also­ with regard your 20% didn't vote Federer the best­ of all time.

Well let me tell you some of the comments­ I have read here,

*Roger is scared to death of nadal­ he can never beat him ever (Forgot Madrid open a few­ weeks ago then?)

*Nadal is the greatest of all time,­ he could thrash beat sampras 6-0 6-0 6-0 on grass with­ his hands tied.

*Jimmy Connors could thrash Nadal and­ anyone else on any surface. thats why he is the­ greatest not federer

Are you telling me these peoples­ well informed opinions mean anything? like they are­ your 20% category. Ask professional tennis players­ backhouse M and the figure would be at least­ 95%

Informed opinion of people who were/are­ professional tennis players means more then ignorant­ people who wtch the odd tennis game here and there and­ think they are experts.

Backhouse M for the 2nd time read what I wrote. I did­ not say he relied only on his serve alone did ? Check­ again. I saidhe relyed too much on it. Let me copy and­ paste what tyrone wrote. (you should come back to this­ discussion by the way Tyrone)

What alot of Sampras­ supporters either­ choose to ignore or foget is that­ Pete had a HUGE­ booming serve. Don't you remember­ especially in the­ early rounds of Wimbledon he­ basically blasted­ opponents off the court! However­ when his serve was­ slowed on clay he wasn't as­ dominant then was he?­ In fact he was quite average.­ Not a single French Open­ final and hardly any­ tounaments won. Federer does not­ rely on a huge serve­ and actually outplays opponentts­ with his all round­ game. His game is made for all surfaces. He has­ exquisite shot making skills that­ Sampras never had­ (Sampras himself even said this).­ That why people were­ saying he was the greatest even­ before he won the­ French open.

Also to further prove you know little­ about Tennis and how you are just a casualt armchair­ fan you wrote,

i believe a­ great serve and volleyer­ will always have the better of­ a great­ baseliner

What??? Is that why they are virtually­ extinct? The baseliners like Hewitt regularly beat­ people like Sampras ans Henman (serve volloyers) almost­ with ease. In the juniors any seve volleying types­ always have to change thier game as it dosen't hold­ up in todays game. I suugest you actually learn about­ Tennis rather then make things up in your head and­ believe it as fact. For the record Federer used to be a­ serve volloyer (modeled his game on Sampras and the­ other greats) however he changed it to baseline. Why­ was that?

Also Federer has to have more­ options??

What??? like what??? there is no weakness in­ his game. Granted he is not as good a rallyer as Nadal­ and not as mentally strong as him but what other­ options is he supposed to have? have you not seen the­ way he just passes serve volleyers with ease?

Hai friend, I am Roger fans but I think you may see­ this article.Try to go to your favourite searching­ engine
then try to use keywords: Federer Nadal knee­ thanks
and search news: very interesting article :-)
It­ is in Vancouver Sun

if you believe Sampras relied only on his serve alone­ then consider this. Roddick and Karlovic heavily rely­ on their big serve but you don't see them with­ handfuls of slams. Sampras could play, make no mistake­ and his volleying skills were exceptional.i believe a­ great serve and volleyer will always have the better of­ a great baseliner. Federer has to have more options in­ his game with his baseliner style of play. yes only my­ view and not going to be valued as much as others. but­ if we fans can't even express our views without­ criticism of not conforming to other players opinions,­ then what is the point of being able to comment?­ (don't forget 20% of voters don't think Federer­ is the best either). As to me being sensitive, no not­ really, just like to give my views as much as everyone­ else - not to persuade others or anything like that but­ to give my thoughts and reasons. i enjoy reading other­ people's thoughts and as long as they are well­ argued it is interesting to see different­ interpretations. Don't really see what all the­ attacking of eachother achieves really and i've­ appreciated what others have said even if not always­ reciprocated.

Why are you so sensitive? You sound like the insecure­ type the way you write. Again Man Utd couldn't­ dominate Liverpool this season but dosent' mean­ they are not the best team in England does it?

Also­ with regard not being able to read properly if you­ check I wrote 'who are you to say they are wrong? I­ did not say you did not have the right! There is a big­ difference. I mean why should your opinion mean­ anything compared to the legends of Tennis. What makes­ your view valid? I never said you didn't have a­ right to express it. Don't be so sensitive.

So who­ is the best of all time then? If you say Sampras after­ Tyrone demonstrated beyond reasonible doubt how sampras­ relys too much on a big serve and less on tennis skill­ then your crazy.

Oh, and all this does not mean that i think Nadal is­ the best ever either in case you are wondering.