I caught some tennis on the tube this afternoon. Rogerer Federer easily beating Andy Roddick in one of the last tuneups to the US Open.

The amazing thing is that Roddick is actually a very solid player, but next to Federer, he looks helpless, always scrambling to reach the next shot, whereas Federer, with his long, looping strides makes every shot look easy.

There's no doubt in my mind that Federer is the best player in the world now by a large margin. His only weakness is on clay where he can be had by the heavy, looping groundstrokes of some clay court specialists. However, get him on an attacking surface and he's so far ahead of the pack it is silly.

The real question that I'm throwing out there now though, is that given that he has no adequate competitiors in today's game, where does he rank against that other great player of recent times, Pete Sampras, the curly haired fellow regarded by some as the greatest player ever. The truth is both of them faced inadequate competition during their careers. Sampras' main nemesis was Andre Agassi, a gifted player in his own right but not quite in Pete's class. Federer's main competition in the future will likely come from the young Nadal kid from Spain, but for now, it's a bit of a mismatch, except on clay.

Now personally, I'm inclined to think that Federer has a slightly more complete game than Pete. His service is not as dominating, but his all court game makes him a more complete player. Plus, Pete was perpetually plagued with fitness issues. Having said all that, Sampras always answered the call in big matches, so it's really hard to say. For now, I'll say that Pete would probably beat him but Federer, given his age, is not yet at his peak.

Only time will tell, I suppose.