First of all, lets mention the conventional arguments of the supporters in each one of the two players.
Those who support Laver presumably will argue:
A) Laver achieved the greatest accomplishment in tennis - the Grand-Slam (wining all four majors in the same year), and he did it twice (1962 & 1969) !! Sampras, in contrast, not only didn't menage to accomplish this unique deed (only one other player in history did - Donald Budge in 1938), he couldn't even win a career Grand-Slam. A player who never been conquered at Roland Garros (i.e. Sampras) can't be regarded as the greatest ever.
B) It is true, Laver won "only" 11 grand slam titles against Sampras' 14, however he would have won much more if not turning professional in 1963 for more than five years (and by this, not able to compete in the grand slams events).
C) Laver was the best tennis player in tennis history, a complete player without any weakness who could have played well on any surface and in every way, from the back court and at the net. We can't say the same about Sampras, who's backhand can be regarded as a weakness.
Those who support Sampras presumably will argue:
A) Sampras holds the most prestigious record in tennis - Grand Slam titles, he has 14 of them. To those who will claim Laver' amount of GS titles is misleading (see argument B above), in the same way it can be said that Sampras played in a much more competitive era than Laver', and that Laver won his titles only on two different surfaces (clay & grass) while Sampras did it on three (Rebound-Ace, grass & hard).
B) In his prime years, Sampras was the uncontested best player in the world while playing in the most competitive era in tennis history. During this time, he managed to finish number one in the world ranking a record 6 straight years. Laver, in contrast, was the master in an era in which there was a big gap between the top players to the rest of the field.
C) Sampras was the best player in tennis history. He had no weaknesses, served like a god, had the best shot the game has ever seen (his running forehand), his athleticism was second to none and was able to play great on every surface. Like Laver, he played well not only while serving and volleying but also from the back of the court.
If we will examine the arguments, which refer mostly to their achievements and to the quality of their tennis, we can see justice almost in every one of them. Both Laver and Sampras have a gigantic achievement on which we can always speculate, like what would have happened if Laver had not turned pro in 1963 or what would have happened if Sampras had played on grass in 3 of the 4 majors - but it will be better if we won't. Lets respect the history, if Laver won 11 GS titles and Sampras never won Roland Garros, maybe it was meant to be like that.
If you are asking how there is justice in both sides' arguments while both Laver and Sampras claimed to be the best ever, well, it will not be right to compare between the tennis level which was played in the past to tennis level of today, each era should be judged separately. The reason for it is that from era to era all the elements which influence the tennis level are getting better - the equipment, the training methods and also the human body structure (and therefore, the fact, that in a meeting between the two Sampras would have won, is irrelevant).
In the paragraph' first line it's says 'almost' because there is one exception, and it's regards Sampras' backhand. In the prime years of his career (1993 - 1998) it wasn't a weakness - he could have rallied shot to shot with anybody from the back of the court.
Now back to the big question - who is greater ? From the aforementioned arguments, every tennis fan can come out with a different conclusion. Achievements and quality of play are indeed very significant factors and by them it's a very close battle. However, the most important and most relevant argument to the million dollar question, the argument that should tip the scale to one side or another, is always left behind when the "experts" deal with our issue, and that is who had more greatness.
You can't analyze greatness - it is beyond human understanding, and in sports, sometimes there are happenings that only under this term can be explicable. When an athlete has greatness, limits do not exist, senses are expanded and imagination becomes reality. Greatness is not teachable - you are born with it, and only few athletes in history were blessed with it. To my understanding of the term 'greatness', people should be very careful when they use it in sports, because most of the top achievements and top athletes have little to do with it. If we will concentrate on the last twenty years of international male tennis, players like Lendl, Wilander or Courier who won multiple GS and considered to be great players, when they met an equally good opponents in a major final, there wasn't a sense that they will prevail due to an extraordinary character or ability they are carrying. The winner was decided usually because of basic competition skills, like form and mental toughness. That wasn't always the case with other players like Boris Becker, who sometimes seemed as he was carrying an aura with him, what helped him not once to turn a seemingly lost match into a glorious win. With this kind of greatness, Becker, almost single handedly, brought Germany two Davis Cup trophies in the late eighties. Another player who showed spark of greatness is Andre Agassi, who's out-of-no-where win at Roland Garros in 1999 seemed to be a stroke of destiny. After all the years he wanted to be better than Sampras in something, he managed to do it, completing the Career Grand-Slam. Searching the list of past tennis champions, as Laver, might allow us to meet with more players who showed greatness. However, we will not come across a player who had more greatness than Pete Sampras.
Already when he burst to the scene at the 1990 US.Open, a 19 years old Sampras showed his greatness by beating Lendl, McEnroe and Agassi, one after the other, to become the youngest US.Open ever. Few years later, when he became the world's best player, Sampras began showing his greatness to the world of sports in a pace which was second to only one other athlete, named Michael Jordan. Sampras' greatness consisted everything, he had the aura of Becker, the destiny of Agassi and an ability to elevate his game somehow, someway, at the most critical times. Some of the most mesmerizing moments in tennis history belongs to Sampras. The tragic illness of his coach Tim Gullikson late in 1994 and the fact that throughout his career he suffered from Thalassemia Minor (low-iron blood condition ) - a disease which made him lethargic at times, and also developed a permanent ulcer during the 1994 season, brought Sampras to show his heroism time and time again. Tennis fans who saw Sampras fighting Jaime Yzaga at the 1994' US.Open despite being half dead, crying upon his ill coach while beating Jim Courier at the 1995' Australian Open or throwing up on court and staggering from one side of the court to the other side before beating Alex Corretja at the 1996' US.Open, know how lucky they were to witness such unique occasions.
Sampras was so great that the last match of his career, the 2002 US.Open Final, had greatness all over it. After more than two years without a title, when most of the press urged him to retire, Sampras started an improbable journey and reached the final at New York. Leading 2:1 In the final against his greatest rival, Andre Agassi, Sampras began to collapse physically. However, as he did so many times in his career, he somehow found a second wind and won his 14 GS title.
Pete Sampras' greatness was felt not only during his court' heroics. In his prime he was much more than a the world's best player, he was a myth. When he walk onto the court he carried an aura with him - every opponent knew a giant stands in front of him, in a big match no one bet against him and when he was in trouble most people expect him to win nevertheless. He was the best clutch performer in tennis history and knew how to deliver when it counted most (14 GS titles in 18 final performances against, for example, Laver' 11 in 17).
Pete Sampras was born to be the greatest player of all time and when he broke the most prestigious record in tennis everyone could have notice this. He did it on the hall of tennis - Centre Court at Wimbledon, in front of his parents, who saw him for the first time since he became the world' best tennis player, against an appropriate opponent (Patrick Rafter) and under the twilight (as result of rains), what created a spectacular seen at the end of the match when all the cameras' flashes lighted the stadium. The tears of Sampras completed an unforgettable night, a night that didn't left a lot of doubts concerning Sampras' greatness.
Most of the times Pete Sampras was a Victorian Hero but not once he was also a Tragic Hero. When he lost important matches, a lot of times it happened due to his physical health, and the most significant times were on the red clay of Paris, in the years he played the best tennis of his career - 1996 & 1997. In 1996 Sampras played such an heroic tournament in memorial of his coach Tim Gullikson, he ran out of energy during the semi final stage. In 1997, when he came to Paris on a mission to shorten his matches and accordingly crushed his two worthy opponents in the first two rounds, he got a stomach virus on the eve of the 3rd round match, what apparently ended his quest. Sampras, in contrast to other great players of the past who didn't won all of the four Majors, like McEnroe, Lendl or Edberg, never had a match on which he will ponder the rest of his life. When he had real chances, he grabbed them, but in Paris they just hadn't come.
summary
Pete Sampras was gifted with an uncommon tennis skills, and when he played on the grandest stage, he showed the tennis world a unique flair and phenomenal abilities. It's true he never won Roland Garros, but in terms of greatness, his on-court heroics throughout his career surpasses it. Sampras' heroics was unmatched, and this greatness of his, which unfortunately had never been recognized in the sports medium, separates him from Rod Laver or any other tennis player in history, and makes him, with out any question marks, the greatest tennis player of all time.
The author can be reached at samprasheart@gmail.com
Pete Sampras' Resume of Greatness
Appendix 1 - Dictionary definition for 'Great'
Great adj':
1. Remarkable or outstanding in magnitude degree or extent.
2. Extensive in time or distance; large in quantity or number.
3. Of outstanding significant or importance.
4. Superior in quality or character, noble.
Appendix 2 - Statistical Comparison between Laver and Sampras
GS Titles GS Finalist GS Finals Win % Career Titles Playing Years
Laver 11 6 64.71 47 195_ - 1962 / 1968 - 1975
Sampras 14 4 77.78 64 1988 - 2002
