Originally Posted by MisterQ
I basically agree. But you were much more concise than I!
Now this is why I really want Andre to win another slam. He could start to push into Tier 1 territory. But it is a tough task with all these young players' games maturing.
If Andre wins two more slams, and especially those two being the French and Wimbledon (since that would give him two Career Grand Slams), I'd put him in Tier 1 Category.
That would compare him a lot more favorably to Pete. But Pete would still be ahead IMO. In fact, I would almost have to create a separate even higher level tier for Pete by himself. It's not just the slams count. It's those 286 weeks at #1 (compared to Andre's current of 101 only), 6 year-end #1s, and his favorable head to head record against Andre.
Some people consider Laver to be greater than Sampras because of his two calendar year Grand Slams (was it consecutive, btw?...I forgot). Some put them about equal. Personally, I'd put him below Sampras. Laver played at an era where almost if not all the slams were played on grass. Think about how many slams Pete would have today if all slams are played on grass til today.
At least 20 slams, me thinks. So that is why I think Pete is greater than Rod. At least that's my argument/logic anyway.
Don't misunderstand me, Laver's 2 Grand Slams are huge achievements in their own right.
(Oh, btw...can you tell I like to talk/discuss about tennis achievements