So, Pete Sampras thinks Roger Federer would not have dominated him like he does his current rivals?
For my money, the Sampras who beat Andre Agassi in the 1999 Wimbledon final could have held his own against Federer.
That was a truly phenomenal display.
Having said that, he would need the grass to be as fast as it was eight years ago, which made his serve better than that of anyone Federer faces today.
But on a hard court, Federer's all-court strength would have been too much for the American and on clay, well.... no contest.
I'd give Sampras the edge on serve and volley, just, but Federer is stronger on forehand, backhand and, crucially, movement.
What are your thoughts?