Check back to read Loyal Homer’s argument that Federer is better than Sampras, and Sports Geek’s argument that Sampras is better than Federer.
This was a difficult debate to judge. In fact, it was so difficult that it went back and forth in my head like a tennis match (Ba-dum bump).
On one hand, winning a Grand Slam of any kind implies a quality victory, let alone 15. These are the “elite” tournaments, and they draw the steepest competition around. On the other hand, the caliber of competition from year to year does need to be taken into consideration (somewhat).
While no one at TSD’s World Headquarters doubts the validity of Roger Federer’s accomplishment, the question was to debate whether or not his new record of 15 Grand Slam titles was enough to place him ahead of Pete Sampras in the discussion about the greatest tennis player.
If I were to ask who the greatest basketball player of all time was, most people would say Michael Jordan. Speaking strictly in terms of statistics, though, MJ is not at the top of any lists. It doesn’t matter what the category, somebody has produced more than him. When you think of NBA Championships, for example, he doesn’t even come close to guys like Bill Russell or Sam Jones, who have 11 and 10 rings respectively. In fact, Bill Russell only played in two NBA seasons where he DID NOT win an NBA title.
On that same note, Scottie Pippen has just as many rings as Jordan does… does that mean that Pippen was as great of a player as Jordan?
The answer is no. Simply having a statistic does not immediately qualify you for greatness. Perhaps Magic Johnson, a basketball legend in his own right, put it best when he described Michael Jordan as being “…the greatest player ever, and Bill Russell is the greatest winner ever and will always be.”
Perhaps that is where the distinction lies.
It is not what you win, but how you win it, that qualifies you for greatness.
When you consider the list of names that Pete Sampras has defeated on his way to 14 Grand Slam titles – and then compare those names to those etched in Federer’s resumé – THAT becomes a true litmus test.
When you compare resumés, Sampras dominated for a longer period of time against a pool of considerably greater talent than Federer has faced. The fact that, as Sports Geek points out, Sampras had to claim the ranks of #1 from the hands of other tennis legends in their own right, adds a certain level of credence to the Sampras argument.
Our friend Michael Friedman very accurately points out in his comment that Federer has defeated some very impressive players, including guys like Sampras or Andre Agassi. The difference is that Federer, through no fault of his own, did not compete against these players when they were at the height of their respective games. The one player generally regarded as a legitimate challenge to Federer’s supremacy, Rafael Nadal, actually has a better record in head-to-head play against Federer, which Sports Geek also points out. And, with all due respect to Yevgeni Kafelnikov, he is no Boris Becker.
So, while I am awarding this debate to The Sports Geek, I am in no way closing the book on this argument. As Loyal Homer points out, the number of consecutive semi-final appearances by Federer, along with the fact that he has also won at all four Grand-Slam events, are accomplishments Sampras was never able to claim.
So to paraphrase Magic’s quote, I would right now award the title of greatest player to Pete Sampras, but the title of greatest winner goes to the undisputed champion of tennis Grand Slam tournaments – Roger Federer.
(Now we just have to hope that Sports Geek doesn’t get injured trying to jump the net!)
Posted by Bleacher Fan 
