Interesting comments by Paul

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...refer=intsports

As you guys like to say on this board - Discuss

nice thoughts...but it'll never happen.

He could, but he would need fast playing conditions.

:bow: :bow: :bow: The greatest of all time.

For all of us..please return once more Pete.

Yes but what does that mean? Does that mean he is still a top 16 player on grass or does that mean with a good draw and a bit of luck he could get there?

Bjorkman reached the semi last year. So it is easy to imagine Sampras in the second week as well. However Bjorkman had a good draw and luck and has always been at the top of the double's league so his form has always been consistent.

Paul Haarhuis was never as good as Rios or Ivanisevic. A few years later though, he looks like he is better than the other 2. Can Paul Haarhuis reach the second week as well? Maybe as much chance as Bjorkman. So again what does it tell us? nothing.

I think those kind of statements are made for discussion purpose and are only hype. it is impossible to place or gauge someone that has not played in the real tour for 4/5 years.

I can easily see plenty of players creating an upset even on grass. Karlovic, Query, Bjorkman himself, and a 110 other players in the same way as George Bastl did already 3/4 years ago. On the day anything can happen but from Bjorkman, Agassi or Connors reaching the latter stages of a GS, they will remain the exception and not the norm. Those occurences are not that rare in itself as they are a lot of old players around but it hardly ever happens twice to the same player.

So to sum it up. yes Sampras could reach the second week, does it mean anything? no. No more chance of Sampras reaching th esecond week this year as Bjorkman.

The key difference between Bjorkman and Sampras of course Tenez, is that the Swede has remained playing competitive tennis on the ATP circuit since 2002, whereas Pete retired and has played next to no serious tennis since. If Sampras returned after minimal paractice and made the second week at Wimbledon, as so many people seem to believe he could, it'd prove beyond any doubt that this is a weak era. Personally if he was in the bottom half of the draw, I see no reason why he wouldn't reach the final; Gimelstob has already stated that Sampras is taking advantage of the newer rackets in the same way as the current no-hopers. If Nadal (young clay courter with not a lot of previous on grass), Baghdatis (had barely won a match on grass before his run) and Bjorkman (should have been at home with a pipe and slippers reading stories to his grandkids) can make the semis, why not Pete?

It is a big IF first of all. And secondly, If he were to get to the 4th round, I am not sure it would prove much.

As much as you would like us to believe, this era is not weak. Quite the opposite actually. In the same way Sampras struggled more or less from 1998 onwards still being pretty young he was not dominating cause the depth of the field was getting better and better. That time was the end of long lasting number 1s. It did not start in 2003.

What Federer is achieving now is beyond belief cause he dominates like Borg and Lendl were but in a much more more competitive world. This is why most former GOAT like Laver will have no problem surrendering their crown to him if he carries on like that a while more.