Is Roger Federer Better Than Pete Sampras with a French Open Win?
He was the most dominating player in tennis at one point, until Nadal dethroned him last year in the French Open and in the best Wimbledon men's final in history.
Yeah, I said it.
After Nadal won his sixth Grand Slam title at this year's Australian Open against the No. 2 Federer, we saw Federer break down at the ceremony.
He has 13 Grand Slam titles and is right there behind Pete Sampras with a chance to tie, or even break, the record of 14 this year. After his Australian breakdown, you can tell how badly Federer wants this.
At the age of 27, Federer still has time to not only break the record, but squash it.
Of the 14 Grand Slams that Sampras had in his 15-year career, there was one major he just could not get: that damn French Open.
Now, with the quarterfinal looming against Frenchman Gael Monfils, it looks like it might be smooth sailing for Federer.
The last remaining players in the draw are 1-38 against him. Chile's Fernando Gonzalez is the only one who has beaten him, but he is 1-9 against Federer.
Now that we got the facts out of the way, the question looms: If Federer wins the French Open, does that make him better than Sampras?
I'm going to say yes.
At 27, Federer has 58 singles titles. Sampras finished at the age of 31 with 64 titles.
Federer already has more clay titles than Sampras (8-3). With a French Open title, he would have Grand Slam No. 14, giving him the opportunity for No. 15 at his favorite major tournament—Wimbledon.
First things first.
Federer would have to get that French title and become the sixth male in tennis history to win all four Grand Slams.
Fans easily dismissed Federer after he lost to Nadal in three of the last four Grand Slams, but if he wins that French Open title, all eyes will be on him again.
His quest to be the best men's tennis player ever will continue.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?