LOL, but...really, who is the victim? Is there a victim? I don't see a victim.
I’m the victim! Can’t you see it?! I’ve been following these clowns for 45 years - I’m the victim! They don’t give a hoot about me!
I see a bunch of different players doing what players have always done: play according to the context of their time. No one is being victimized, no one getting the short end of the stick. Rafa isn't the victim because the WTF is indoors, nor is Roger the victim because there's no grass Masters. Etc, etc.
Actually, the WTF could be indoors and on clay. Even once, just to reflect the diversity of the tour. And there’s no reason why the Asian swing has to be hard courts at all. These things aren’t inevitable, and they affect the rankings and records of the great players.
And again, I’m not saying “What if” other than to point out that if the tour was structured advantageously to Rafa, I wouldn’t claim he was the goat. Especially not if he was always fit and entering every event, and his closest rival still matched him in the slam total.
Sampras wasn't victimized - his game just didn't play well on clay. There were other players of his era that were more balanced on different surfaces. Somehow Andre Agassi, an inferior player, managed to win Roland Garros and Wimbledon. Just 15 years before, there was this Swede who won the Channel Slam three years in a row. I think what this really tells us is that while Pete was great, he wasn't as great as the Big Three or Borg in his prime.
And no, the increase in hards was not to anyone's advantage because it was slow...it didn't happen over night. Hards are also a bit different than grass or clay because the courts vary more greatly. You've got everything from the super fast Cincinnati and indoor WTF to almost clay-like slow courts.
The change to hards was to Jimmy Connors advantage in 1978 and John McEnroe’s from 79-81. They played on clay in 1976 and 1977. They even changed their hard courts since Sampras retired and again, it’s not set in stone that the tournament should be played on hards. They could have easily have switched to grass or clay. The point again is that the tour makes commercial decisions, not decisions related to tennis history or aesthetics.
As for Sampras he had to specialise to become the great player he wanted to be. Agassi was a strange case because he was almost a prediction of what was to come in the BIG 3, with one-size-fits-all his baseline game. Undoubtably great but also undoubtedly lucky. He escaped a drug ban in 1997 that would have ruined him.
Borg was a great exception in the way he managed all those Wimbos and French. People wondered was he human, given his virtually non existent pulse. He had a great eye, a decent return, and the great to care of his volleys.
But one Channel Slam in 28 years showed just how difficult the transition between the surfaces used to be. It’s still not an easy one to be ready for Wimbledon after Paris, but it’s made more accessible by the extras week…
11-6 10-4 = 21-10 
Impressive numbers 
