Originally posted by luvbadboys
I just realized that Hewitt played and beat Safin, Federer and Ferrero one after the other.
We now have at least 5 players (Hewitt, Safin, Federer, Ferrero, Gonzalez, Paradorn) who are all in the same age group and they'l be fighting it out for the next 5 years. I believe that whoever dominates in the next 5 years should be more highly regarded than Sampras was in his heyday. because Sampras never had to face that many contemporaries who were as good as he was. Sampras had Becker, Andre and Pat but the four of them were never at their peak together. Becker retired, Andre was in and out of the game because of his love life and Pat came unto the scene late in Sampras's career. I am not saying that Sampras is not the best player of all time. I believe he is. I am simply saying that we would have had a better measure of his greatness had he been forced to meet Boris, Pat and Andre on a regular basis. Should any of the 5 players listed above dominate the game the way Sampras did for 6-7 years, that player in my mind will be a better player than Sampras whether or not he wins 14 slams.
This is a theory in progress but let me know what you think.
There are also Goran, Courier, Edberg during Sampras peak time and many more. It's just because Sampras was so dominating that ppl didn't notice there are great players during his prime time. I still can't understand why ppl keep on doubting how great Sampras was even he kept winning slams when ppl think he could not do it anymore. If you want to say whoever player on your list is a great player, you are free to do so but please don't try to step on the achievement of other players to make the one you like look good.
Last year's USO, Sampras defeat Rafter, Agassi & Safin to reach the final while all 3 players are still at their peak and all are ex-champion in USO.