Hamburg  - While Roger Federer said it would take a few days until his historic French Open title would really sink in, the praise was long being heaped on him.

Federer became the sixth player in men's tennis to win all four majors and with his first Paris crown on Sunday also matched Pete Sampras' leading 14 Grand Slam titles.

And it was no one else than Sampras, who never completed the Grand Slam because he couldn't win Paris, who led the choir.

"What he's done over the past five years has never, ever been done, and probably will never, ever happen again. Regardless if he won there or not, he goes down as the greatest ever. This just confirms it," the American Sampras was quoted as saying.

Federer can move ahead of Sampras if he wins a sixth Wimbledon next month. On Sunday he received the trophy from Andre Agassi, who completed his own collection of Grabnd Slam titles 1999 in Paris.

"The Maestro" read the front-page headline in French sports daily L'Equipe, and the paper named him "the greatest of all times" after he joined Fred Perry, Don Budge, Roy Emerson, Rod Laver and Agassi as winners of all four majors.

In Spain, the home country of his rival and four-time Paris winner Rafael Nadal, La Vanguardia said that "Federer rid himself off the ghosts (of the past)."

Nadal himself said that Federer "absolutely deserved" the Paris title while former players debated whether Federer or Laver are the greatest ever.

The Australian Laver won 11 majors overall and achieved two true Grand Slams by winning all four events in one year, twice in fact, in 1962 and 1969. He also missed five years 1963-1968 because he turned professional.

"Now that he's won in Paris, I think it just more solidifies his place in history as the greatest player that played the game, in my opinion," Sampras said.

"I'm a huge Laver fan and he had a few years in there where he didn't have an opportunity to win majors. But you can't compare the eras and in this era the competition is much more fierce than Rod's."

Lendl, who never won Wimbledon, told the German Press Agency dpa that he preferred a more diplomatic solution.

"One could make a very solid argument for both champions," he said.

I am of the opinion that the two different eras can not be compared. I believe Rod Laver was the best player before 1968 and Roger is the best from that time.

If Roger was to win a calendar year Grand Slam - he would clearly surpass Laver in my opinion," said Lendl.

Laver himself, in an interview with USA Today, struck a similar note and said that there would never be an alltime leader.

"I don't think you can compare eras. You can be the dominant performer of your time, but I don't think anyone has the title of best ever," said the Australian.(dpa)