Lets talk roger federer

Recently i had a discussion with a colleague about why i feel that Federer is not the greatest tennis player ever to live. I was told that i am crazy for my theory but i am going to present it anyway.
In my opinion Pete Sampras is the greatest player i have ever seen. He reigned over an era of tennis when the best players ever to play were playing. He got to play them at their best and defeated them all with regularity. Rod Laver is probably the greatest player to live because to win 2 grand slams in a career will never be done again. Steffi Graf did in the same calendar year and Serena Williams did it over a two year span. Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi discouraged this generation of players which allowed for Federer to become what he has become.
Let me explain. Ivan Lendl took Pete Sampras under his wing and told him that being number 1 in the world you had to work harder than ten people combined working out. He would play a 5 set match and then go bike 20 miles. Gil Reyes trained Agassi like he was going to do the iron man competitions. They made tennis a full time commitment of body and mind. The players who came after Sampras and Agassi were Magnus Norman, Petr Korda and Marcello Rios. rumors were abound that each of the men would tank matches or not give their best effort because they did not want the pressure of being number 1. In fact when Petr Korda won the Australian open, he retired because he did not want the pressure of answering the questions that the number 1 player has to. Marcello Rios hated being the number 1 player so much that he retired way before he was ready to quit. Tomas Muster played only clay court tournaments because he could not compete with courier and Agassi and Sampras on the other surfaces.
then the next generation of players, Leyton Hewitt, Marat Safin, Juan Carlos Ferrero, Mark Phillippousis was the next group. Safin ascended to number 1 and whipped Sampras in the U.S. open and everyone thought a new day was coming. He hated being number one. Ferrero disappeared because he could not win on any other surface than clay. Hewitt had a great record against agassi, sampras and federer but injuries beset him. Phillipousis just did not have the complete game. Andy Roddick was supposed to be the next great one. David Nalbandian too. Most of these men mentioned simply did not have the desire, fight or fortitude to want to be a consistent champion. these young guns couldn't beat the old men and therefore never allowed their skills to elevate them to a higher level.
Federer has two peers, Andy Murray and Rafael Nadal. They have the same grit as Sampras and Agassi. They currently have winning records against Federer in their last few head to head matches. If Nadal had not gotten injured, who knows what his year was going to be. Andy Murray is a year away from dominating this sport. His all court game is pretty cool to watch develop. Federer came at the right time in his sport. The only two players who wanted to challenge him were past their primes. Only recently has anyone challenged Federer. Sampras had Edberg, Becker, MC enroe, Agassi, Courier, Chang, Rafter, Connors, and Lendl to contend with on every surface on a weekly basis. Federer has made 20 plus consecutive grand slam semi finals. Who does he have to wade his way through to get to a championship. The men i mentioned before all would have quit before the match started. How many hall of fame players is Federer competing against these days? One!!! Sampras never won the French open which gives all of the Federer people ammunition. However I saw Sampras singlehandedly defeat the Russian Davis cup team on clay. Maybe his single greatest achievement. Is Federer freakishly good? Well hell yes. Most of his career, he didnt have a tennis coach. He sees the game with clarity that no one else ever has. Sampras kept matches simple. He just overpowered you and if he needed to show you a running forehand he quickly demoralized you with that shot. Federer may be the greatest ball striker ever. He hits shots from every angle cleaner than anyone i have ever seen. Sampras had to compete against players who had different styles. Today, no one serves and volleys like edberg or mc enroe. When players get don in matches today, no one seems to have a plan b. They quit essentially. players today may be faster and more athletic, but have no variety in their games. During the Sampras era each match was a chess match. Yes he overpowered some people but when his serve wasnt clicking or his volleys were not sharp, sampras relied on his forehand or his strong baseline game to win. Federer is great, but for my money I am taking Sampras.