Borg and Gerulaitis

@iamtman1: Fed & Sampras play/played 2 slams a year on hard courts (yes, they're faster than red clay) & 1 on grass, so the difference isn't as much as you'd think. Yes, the depth is better now that it was during Rosewall's time, but the number of all-time greats playing at the same time in the 1960s and '70s was greater, too (Rosewall, Laver, Gonzales, Emerson, Newcombe, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Vilas, Roche, Smith, Ashe, as examples). This isn't as cut and dried as you'd like to think.

@72fordgrantorino Most all time greats now (not all, but most) consider Federer #1. Sampras, Borg, Agassi, McEnroe have said it. Laver is a class act and certainly one of the all time greats. His game was ahead of his time. But if Fed or Sampras could have played 3 slams a yr on grass as Laver did they would have 20 slams each by now. Besides the depth of the game was nowere near what its been like over the past 20yrs. Even the most biased old timers would admit that.

@iamtman1: Really? Go to the Dec. 10, 2008 issue of the Australian. It's online. Note the comments from the all-time greats.

@shandirocks: Of course I'm impressed by Laver's 2 grand slams, but there wasn't much on Laver's resume after the 2 slams. Also, the list of triple crown winners in baseball isn't much longer than the list of grand slam winners in tennis, so they're comparable in degree of difficulty. Laver was competitive from about 1957 - 1976. He lost 5 years from grand slam competition because he was a pro. If you subtract the 2 grand slam years, he used 11 years to win his other 2 grand slam titles.

@72fordgrantorino If you are not impressed by a player winning the grand slam than thats your opinion. i happen to think it is a feat that makes a player stand out above the rest. and Laver did it twice so he is the best ever imo. i wouldnt compare a triple crown to a tennis player winning the grand slam.

Why hasn't Fed s&v more often is a mystery. But he did do it often 2003-05. I agree espec now that he's not as consistent off the ground as he used to be, he should go back and s&v more again. But i still thk overall he was a better player regardless of era than Borg, who i aslo think is an all time great.

Sampras would have squashed Rosewall like an ant.

@Samprasisthebest: Wrong! The old-school all-court players like Rosewall (and Laver) did it routinely. Except they didn't try to hit the cover off the ball. Instead, they hit approach shots and then volleys.

@Samprasisthebest: Actually, Rosewall made a brief comeback in 1984 (after having been inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame in 1980), when he was 49, at a tournament in Austrialia. He reached the final. When Sampras can do that, then we'll talk.

@Samprasisthebest: Rosewall, who had the longest competitive playing career of ANY player, played all of the greatest players from 1950 - 1980 (and held his own against all of them). Given Rosewall's impeccable footwork and timing (something that's often overlooked in evaluating great players), in addition to his court speed/anticipation and one of the all-time backhands and volleys, would have covered anything Sampras had to throw at him. Have 'em both play with 1970s wood rackets and we'd see.