Luxilon Borg said:
I. Haychew said:
He (Phederer) could've "killed two birds with one stone" iph only he'd have beaten Pholks in a phew more major phinals. Three or phour more majors AND a slightly less lop-sided head-to-head. Can you imagine? Would there even be a GOAT debate?
Um, yeh, like winning that Del Potro US Open Final up two sets to one..or stealing one of those French Open finals..maybe the one he was up one set then disappeared..or winning either one of the semis against Joker in the US Open final up two match points. :angel:
The DP Debacle was a big time match, more than just a typical major final in retrospect. That one might bite him badly when all is said and done, would've been 6 straight at a major, would've made him King of New York and, assuming he would've still won AO 2010, he would've had a non calendar year grand slam.
As for the article it is just one of many ways to look at it. Roger has the greatest career to date, the only reasonable argument against that would be giving Laver a ton of extra slams for winning the calendar year.
But who was "better" between Roger and Laver, Borg, Sampras, can't be compared due to the different eras.