Roger Federer: Best Ever? - Not if he can only beat a 36-year-old Pete Sampras 7-6, 7-6.

I have always been sceptical of these "Federer: The Greatest Tennis Player Ever" claims. It's the popular thing to say. That's what the bandwagon dictates. But, the results of Federer's exhibition matches against Sampras aren't impressive, for him at least. They're highly impressive for Sampras.

Federer is supposed to win because he's Earth's top-ranked player. He's also 26 years old, clearly in his prime. Yet, he couldn't beat Sampras, the last "greatest ever," without tie breakers? He needed tie breakers against a guy who is ten years older than him, who doesn't move as well as he used to, and doesn't even play on the regular pro circuit? That not good.

The world needs to re-think Federer's annointment. He is not the best tennis player ever.

Pete Sampras is.

He has proven it as a dilapidated, slow 36-year-old, who should be a whole lot worse than the best player in the world, a man who is 26 years old and in the prime of his life.

I have long suspected that Sampras was the better player, and now I know it to be true. If these two were the same age, it would be Federer losing the tie breaks.