Subject: Federer/Nadal

As dominant as he's been, just like Sampras he hasnt won at Roland Garros. I wouldnt call him a great player until he has won all 4 majors.

Of all time possibly?

I do hope Federer can beat Sampras' GS total though.

I agree with Nin...

considering roland garros the difference between sampras and federer is that federer played three finals agains nadal and on the other hand sampras wsed to be eliminated in the first rounds

So, number of titles and mostly how much different titles they gained are the only things that decide on 'greatness'?

That's a bit simple imo.
(edited)

Where's the option for Andy Murray ?

this is the contest for runner up... murray is the best... no doubt :P

third option?

That will teach me to read the poll first :)

:))

So you are saying that 2 best players in history of sport arent great ?

[:OO]

They werent good enough to win on clay so how can you call them great? Great on grass and every other surface but not good enough at RG, in Sampras' case, nowhere near good enough.

Clay is anti-tennis surface, and rarest on tour...

depending on the country you com from, here is common ;)

clay is the surface where you have to know tenis if you know what i mean... on gras or on concret sometime
strength is enough...
the most beautifull games are on clay

You are crazy