First of all, I am simply dismissing the notion that clay is the toughest surface of all. If it was, then all these clay courters, who have no other life than to pathetically live and die on clay, would have won something else by now. If you find clay beautiful then thatís sweet. You are in love with clay, I get it. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder after all. Just donít make a sweeping statement that itís the toughest cause it isnít. As I see it, hard surface is just as tough if not more. You should know because your man never won it and unlikely to win it. Come to think of it, both Laver and Borg probably would have struggled just as much. How can you say, no, they wouldn't have when I can say just the same? In fact, I just did.
Second of all, thereís a reason why both Sampras and Federer failed to win even one title on clay. For now, as I canít prove otherwise so I will keep to myself, I will say that Federer is better than Sampras given their records on clay and nothing else. And thatís fine even though one cannot possibly deny that, the 90s were flooded with some great clay courters and it was impossible for anyone, especially when someone didnít have as much experience on clay as opposed to those who practically grew up on clay, to win at least one slam. Other than Nadal, Federer didnít have to fight the likes of Courier, Bruguera, Muster, Kuerten, MoyaÖin fact, the list is countless and it goes on and he would have struggled just as much as Pete to win one RG title. Still, Peteís performance on clay is average compared to his other achievements on other surfaces, but it is still much better than many other clay courters who have done practically nothing on any other surfaces. And sure, Federer can edge on clay against Sampras if thatís what you like to think, but Pete is still better on all other surfaces even in the mental department and who wouldnít take that? As far as I know, Federer has yet to break any of Peteís record and I mean the important ones and has yet to win one RG.
You say Federer is greater than Bruguera, Muster and Courier on clay? And how would you know that? Do you have first hand evidence to support your theory? Did they ever play in their prime against each other? They didnít so shut up even before you open your mouth. Didnít some of you just yesterday were saying how wrong it was for Spain to choose Verdasco and that it was nothing but a stupid mistake to choose him to play the deciding match? Wasnít it Shankar who actually thought it was a smart decision in fact? Do you admit it when you are wrong because I didnít see that happening. Or do you just see arrogance in others while fail to see your own? The point is, some of you are dead wrong sometimes and you need to know it---better yet, admit it. So whatever theory you are giving out, doesnít really always cut it.
Right now, I am more focused on Nadal than Federer. I will see what he can do next year. Expect me to rip him apart every time he fails (Shankar, buddy, you will just have to put up with me). Injury or any other excuses will not fly with me, as I never gave Federer excuses for having the so called mono. Itís all part of the game and just as weak as when I say Pete never took clay all that seriously. So if you are going to go by facts and facts only, then donít play the injury or the overplayed cardÖ.just so we are clear and on the same page.