are we talking about Best Male Tennis Player? Then it has to Rod Laver. Did you guys see him smack green balls if you didn't ask your grandpa ;)

Now we regard Nadal as one of the best or another Pat Cash in making???

Actually the best tennis player ever irrespective of gender. Yes, Rod Laver was # 1 but he stopped playing in 1969. So I can't say much about him coz haven't seen him playing. In this case u have to pay much attention and respect to what former greats like John Mcenroe says - " this was the best final ever".

Much as I never saw Pele play but saw Maradona. Never saw Bradman bat in 1930s and 40s but saw Viv Richards and Brian Lara bat.

Pete and womens Steffie

If u noticed great tennish player from Ivan lendle to Roger fedrer, player who are dominant in grass court are not same in clay court and vice versa. Lendle won every grand slam but French open. Boris becker won except French open. However there are players who had moderate success winning on both form of court. Bjon borg was the one of the greatest player who dominated the both French and wimbledon. Mats willander almost won grandslam only to lose in wimbledon in quarterfinal to miloslav mecir. Who is the greatest player, its kinda subjective. But my vote will go for Bjon borg

"Both belong to the now extinct serve and volley game".

I don't think Roger is a kind of player you would call as a out and out serve-volleyer. Sampras was more of that than Fed. Federer is an all round player, he does not come to the net more often than Sampras does. He does not have, what I would call, the feel for the net as Pete. Fed is however a great ground-stroker. They both have a powerful forehand and a weak backhand. Opposition players always tried to exploit on the backhand of either players. Nadal exploited it more than anybody else. Fed wanted to make room and smash the forehand and everytime he was able to do that he came up with the goods. However, on groundstrokes, Fed had absolutely no answer to Nadal. At the end it all came down to being the fittest after a grueling finale and Nadal proved he is one of the fittest guys on tour. Lets give Roger credit. He came back from two sets down and almost losing the third to being able to hold off Rafa until the sun set at the all england where players could hardly see the ball.

Comparing Sampras to Fed is comparing apples to orange. They both had different set of game, differerent opponents altogether. Eventhough personally I believe Sampras had to keep up with more dangerous opponents than Fed .Sampras at his peak was untouchable and so was Fed. Fed is however the most complete player of the generation. Ask McEnroe. He has an allround game. Can come to the net when he wants and can stay on the baseline and rally amongst the greatest groundstrokers. But its the numbers game and Sampras has 14 whereas Fed has 12. Fed may have one of the most complete game, but until he surpasses Pete, he will play second fiddle when he comes to being the greatest.

Remember Anna Kournikova? She became world no. 1 without winning a single Grand Slam. What would she be if she had won some of them? She was famous on court and off court. She is the best player! :)

I don't think she is his distraction. We have seen him on the pinnacle of his form lately and probably he had her as a girlfriend way before French Open and Wimbledon. If he was not distracted then, how can we say he will be distracted now? Probably she is the source of inspiration for him. :)

Well, she might be a good source of distraction for some of us after you posted those pictures. ;-) LOL

Remember Anna Kournikova? She became world no. 1 without winning a single Grand Slam.

I think Kournikova's never been Singles No 1. But I think yeah, she's held the doubles Numero Uno position along with Hingis.

I think who is best tennis player of all time is a very subjective question....but it has to be among three Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg and Roger Federer

Bjorn Borg, apart from his game, was the guy who popularize tennis in the 70's and 80's. And he had the "game" to win both in grass and clay. He won 6 french open and 5 wimbledon.

Federer would have easily won 3 french open hadnt there been Rafael Nadal - probably the greatest player to play in clay court now. As someone earlier pointed out, he has the complete game. He can "play" and win in clay.

And because of this last point, Pete Sampras wont be considered in the same breadth. Sampras was never in a position to win a French Open. His best performance in FO is a Semi Final berth in 1996 - this guy wasnt comfortable in clay court. This is subjective but if Federer was playing in 90's and there wasnt a guy named "Nadal" he would easily have won French open couple of times. Just consider the player who won French open in 90's

1990 - Andreas Gomez, 1991 - 1992 - Jim Courier, 1993-94- Sergi Brurgera, 1995 - Thomas Muster, 1996 - Yevgeny Kafelnikov, 1997-Gustavo Kuerten, 1998- Andre Agassi, 1999-00- Gustavo Kuerten

Although Agassi, Kuerten and Courier are great names, there isnt a single player here in the pedigree of "Nadal" in clay - meaning Sampras wasn't just good enought in clay even against medicore player. While, I believe Federer would have won French Open if he hadnt come across Nadal - and he might in the future, he has the game to win it.

My all time favorite is Agassi. He along with Borg popularized tennis to unprecedented level and were "cult" figure among the masses.