I don't think the thread will survive long (myself I mostly only follow Grand Slams these days, in the past I was a much bigger tennisfreak (on TV)) but I saw quite a few reactions in the football topic. So what the heck, here goes. Today I read an interesting opinion of Paul Haarhuis (ex-tennis player from the Netherlands). He finds several other players (esp. Sampras) better than Federer. Sampras had in his best times more concurrence. He had to play vs Becker, Agassi, Courier and Edberg. All top players who won several Grand Slams. The last years Federer only had Nadal as a big concurrent. Looking at the current season Haarhuis also thought Murray and Djokovic were good but overall the top is much smaller than in the past. Björn Borg never took part in the Australian Open because he wanted to celebrate Christmas at home. And he booked his successes in a smart shorter period of time. Rod Laver. He was number one of the world without interruption from 1962 til 1969 (inclusive). In both 1962 (as an amature) and 1969 (as a professional) he won all four Grand Slams. An unheard of achievement. In between those years he was not allowed to play Grand Slams because he made money with his sport. How many Grand Slams would he have won if he was allowed? Haarhuis admits that he finds Federer a world class player. He's unbelievably allround and has no weak points. Physically and mentally he is iron strong. Still he doesn’t find him the best player ever, but he admits that he might change his opinion if he later would win 16 or 17 Grand Slams.