Originally Posted by Calimero377
Sampras (14) and Borg (11) are the best slam winners among the men.
Federer has already 5 and is only just at the beginning. Obviously in men's tennis there is no rule that dominant players are gone forever. Or did they just forget to tell Roger?
I was watching perhaps your most favorite match ever this past weekend, the '88 Wimbledon Ladies Final. The most recent women's final left me wanting to see a match with some all-court play. Plus, I wanted to prove it to myself that Roger gets more adulation for hitting shots that Steffi was hitting long ago.
I was satisfied on all counts. There was Steffi in the 2nd or 3rd set retreating to the baseline to cover a lob from Martina. Martina advances to the net and hits a drop volley off of Steffi's return. From about five feet behind the baseline, Steffi sprints to the Deuce court and at the last minute flicks a forehand crosscourt, short angle, wide for a winner. There were four or five other shots that Steffi hit which reminded me of shots that Federer hit at this year's Wimbledon. Almost from the same spots on the court, it was uncanny.
So, why didn't Steffi ever get the same adulation. I have the BBC Broadcast of the match with Ann Jones and Virginia Wade commenting and they certainly gave Steffi her due. Something, of course, must have been lost in the translation, because the Americans, if NBC's broadcasts back then are any indication, never saw fit to bask in the spectacle of her shotmaking. Thus, there could be something after all to your long standing claim that not-being American compromised Steffi's chances of claiming the "greatest ever" title outright.
Federer clearly has found a way to transcend that nationalism. Or, it could just be that there are fewer people in the broadcast booth or in sports marketing agencies with an agenda against him.