Its a hypothesis but still consider this
If Federer would have peaked in 2001 than 2003 what would have Hewitt been left with?
On the other hand Courier would have nicked the RGs and the odd AO as well if Sampras peaked in 91.
Uh, your point? RG and AO is not in question bro. I said Courier would beat Hewitt at RG and AO pretty easily. Wimbledon and US Open are in question here.
By 1993 Sampras had already 3 GS titles and 1 final, as well as 1 year end championship and 1 Grand Slam Cup. So he was clearly at the beginning of his prime, and certainly more competitive and hungry than he was in 2000, when Hewitt started beating him.
Also, the Sampras-factor clearly favors Hewitt, because Sampras was the worst possible mactch-up for COurier. It was Sampras who originally exposed Courierīs game, exposing his backhand by first attacking his forehand-side. Sampras was the first to figure it out, and thatīs pretty much where Courierīs downhill started.
Hewitt, on the other hand, was more than happy to keep passing Sampras, who was getting older and slower by the beginning of the 2000īs.
So itīs not really fair to compare Courier and Hewitt by comparing their results against Sampras.
By the way, Courier never won the US Open.
By 1993, Sampras only had one slam. It was only until
1993 that he won Wimbledon and US Open for the second time.
I never said Courier won the US Open, it was a slightly mid-wording on my part, I meant Sampras won US Open during both stretches after a short drought period (1991 and 2002) while facing Courier and Hewitt respectively.
But your posts have shown how subjective, like most of tennis analysis, this has become. You can argue Sampras was so much better 1991-1993 despite not being in his true prime, but one could argue similarly 2000-2002. Yes, he wasn't the same physically, but he certainly had the years of experience and mental game to still be at the top. It is a total trade off. Bringing in specific match-ups is exactly what I didn't want pointed out.