Federer vs. the 90s [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Federer vs. the 90s

fsoica
11-25-2011, 04:30 AM
A lot of people, especially Fed haters, are arguing here that Fed achieved all those records especially due to a void of big champions during his prime. The phrase before is a non sequitur per se (how can anyone else establish and prove himself as a champion when there's a guy ammasing all the big trophies?) imho, but I will try to make a small statistics of how Federer managed to play against the giants of the era before him. And I am not talking about the likes of Hewitt, Safin, Roddick and so on, who, at least results-wise, apparently played a little bit better before Roger's peak. I am referring to the 90s slam winners/finalists. Let's see:

Federer - Michael Chang 4-1
Federer - Pat Rafter 0-3
Federer - Sampras 1-0
Federer - Agassi 8-3
Federer - Ivanisevic 2-0
Federer - Rusedski 4-1
Federer - Kafelnikov 2-4
Federer - Pioline 1-0
Federer - Moya 7-0
Federer - Enqvist 1-3
Federer - Magnus Norman 1-0
Federer - Krajicek 2-0
Federer - Alex Corretja 2-3
Federer - Andrei Medvedev 0-1
Federer - Philippoussis 4-1

So, how do you assess Roger's results vs. a big part of the players that made the 90s such a "strong era"? Does it bear any significance over the view that the 90s were a stronger era than Roger's peak years?

Topspindoctor
11-25-2011, 04:32 AM
Olderer would have had a positive W/L % against everyone in the 90's because it was a mug era.

SetSampras
11-25-2011, 04:46 AM
Out of all the guys today, I think Fed would fair the most well in say the 90s and early 00s.. 16 slams though?? No way.

Grass: Pete would still be victorious.. Fed would get a few Pete was the man on grass in his prime. It was perfect for his game there And you have some other guys around at the time (Kraijeck, GOran, Andre, Rafter, Becker, etc).. 6 wimbledon titles for Fed here? No way. The grass field was WAY superior back then.

AO- Fed would be the man here, though you got Andre who was himself an AO GOAT candidate. Pete got 2 AO titles in that time period so that would be interesting and a few others like Courier etc. Though Fed would probably come out on top. The court suits his game real well

French Open: Ahh.. You don't have a Nadal but you have many more threats (Courier, Bruguera, Andre, Kafelnikov,Muster Guga later on) Fed would get a few but wouldn't dominate clay.

USO) You got Sampras with the homecrowd advantage, you got Andre who was pretty awesome there ( Straight setted Roger back in 2001, and took him 5 sets at 34 years of age in 04 and played him tough in 05 with a bad back) , you got Rafter later on. Fed would win some USO titles but not as many as he has now.

Indoors: You got Sampras, Becker, Edberg early on, Dre a few times. Fed grabs some but not nearly the amount he has now under this JOKE indoor era full of pushers, defenders, non aggressive attackers etc.


Overrall.. Fed doesn't dominate as he did in the 00's but the landscape probably looks like it did in the 80s with all time greats taking slams from each other. Fed, Sampras, Andre would ALL be getting their piece of the pie. Guys like Courier, Bruguera, Guga, 95 Muster, and some others just below may steal a few from the top as well.

Just speculation.. But thats how I always felt it would have gone. The 90s would have been a duplicate of the 80s. And provided some of all the all time best classic matches and rivalries in HISTORY.. Bar none


An era for great rivlaries and all time greats.. Unfortunately,. the problem here is that Dre's, Pete's and Roger's achievements would have been LESS)

fsoica
11-25-2011, 04:57 AM
Just speculation.. But thats how I always felt it would have gone. The 90s would have been a duplicate of the 80s. And provided some of all the all time best classic matches and rivalries in HISTORY.. Bar none

Unfortunately,. the problem here is that Dre's, Pete's and Roger's achievements would have been LESS)

Nice assessment. I'd love to see the 90s surfaces resurected for only a year (let's say 2012). I wonder who would end up as no.1 next year ...

fsoica
11-25-2011, 04:59 AM
And yeah, I forgot to mention that Federer is 1-2 vs. Guga...

SetSampras
11-25-2011, 05:11 AM
Nice assessment. I'd love to see the 90s surfaces resurected for only a year (let's say 2012). I wonder who would end up as no.1 next year ...

:) Certainly not Djoker or Nadal IMO

tests
11-25-2011, 05:16 AM
Federer would dominate the 90s IMO.
other than sampras on the fastest surfaces (Grass, USO), i don't see anyone stopping fed. Fed would win 4 aussies... win 3-4 Fo's...

USO's, i guess its a toss-up between sampras and fed... but i like feds chances vs sampras at fast USO courts. 60-40 FED.

On fast grass... pete is the man...

Action Jackson
11-25-2011, 05:19 AM
The classic what if scenario, it must be off season already.

SetSampras
11-25-2011, 05:20 AM
Dominating on one surface ( slower rebound ace AO) isn't as exactly dominating the whole tour.. Fed doesn't see the same dominance on grass, USO, Indoors in the 90s as he does today.. He sees success but not "overrall dominant" success every year every tournament that he has saw from 04-on for almost year in year out. There would be issues on all the surfaces.. GREATER issues then he saw from 04-08 or 09


Sampras, Becker, Edberg ( early on),Agassi, some of the other classic grass court or hardcourt attackers aint exactly like shooting fish in a barrel and dominating Roddick, hewitt, Davydenko,Baghaditis, Gonzales, Murray, Fish, Tsonga or freakin James BLAKE etc.

Action Jackson
11-25-2011, 05:23 AM
Federer would be great in any era, RG wouldn't happen unless things went his way like they did for Agassi, then again who really knows.

tests
11-25-2011, 05:26 AM
Federer would be great in any era, RG wouldn't happen unless things went his way like they did for Agassi, then again who really knows.

This has got to be a joke? Federer is a 1 time rg champion and 4 TIME FINALIST.

He would EASILY win several (i am betting 3-4) rg's in any other era. Nadal was his problem... not clay.

Purple Rainbow
11-25-2011, 05:28 AM
In the nineties, Federer would have won every Grand Slam at least 3 times.

HKz
11-25-2011, 05:32 AM
Very hard question honestly as Federer may not even have the same game as we all know he was serving and volleying quite a bit on grass early on his career, though he did still have a very talented ground game.

Who knows how his game would have evolved and how it would have affected with his clay game.

FedvsNole
11-25-2011, 05:33 AM
Listen pete was amazing on grass but so is roger and 90s grass would have suited fed's game even more. Don't forget fed has an incredible serve and a great second serve. Yes, it's not sampras level serving but I would argue with fed's wicked slice and ground skills plus volleying ability he would be just as difficult to break with his cat like movement to suit on fast grass.

Federer was incredible at his peak at getting back serves into play whether it has been philphosis serving at wimbledon or roddick launching 140mph at wimbledon he has gotten them back.

Yes, when sampras played fed in 2001 sampras was not at his peak but I would argue his serve was still near peak level. Federer even at 19 had like 13 or 14 break points in that match with sampras averaging 70% first serves over the match including 80% and 82% in the final set and fed still broke him.

I actually think federer got better as a returner from 19 to his peak at 23-25 which is the only reason I would favor him over sampras at wimbledon even in the 90s.


While I will concede fed may not win as many wimbledons or us opens during this era he would compensate at the FO and AO and end up with the around the same or even more slams.

If fed had been the exact same age as sampras through the 90s with his level even at 30 would have cleaned out alot of slams at wimbledon, us open, and aussie open, from 2000-2002 and i think could have nabbed a french maybe during that time too although guga was tough.

Action Jackson
11-25-2011, 05:38 AM
This has got to be a joke? Federer is a 1 time rg champion and 4 TIME FINALIST.

He would EASILY win several (i am betting 3-4) rg's in any other era. Nadal was his problem... not clay.

Here is your basic problem. You are equating what he has done within his particular era and transporting it back to the 90s. You can't do that, time travel doesn't work like that, so don't cherrypick.

Once you work that out, then you have to look at the respective games of the players who played on clay in the 90s at that time. Guga on one good hip beat him, you think he couldn't do it at his peak? Bruguera would be breaking Fed's backhand down like he did with Sampras and unlike Muster he loved playing passing shots.

In other words the clay games that trouble Federer are were more widespread then than now, it's much different on clay with Kuerten, Muster, Bruguera, Medvedev, Corretja etc. Even allowing this Federer wouldn't play the same way then as he does now, it's that simple.

Action Jackson
11-25-2011, 05:46 AM
90s didn't have surface homogenisation, so can't apply what went down previously based on results which occurred in different conditions.

Circumstances aren't close to the same, apart from the dimensions of the court.

Haelfix
11-25-2011, 06:22 AM
I sympathize with the view that Roger would have a harder time at Wimbledon, bc of Pete, Becker, Rafter and a few others, but I don't buy the clay court spiel. Assuming of course that Fed keeps his racket tech.

Yes kuerten is a better clay courter and Muster would have played him tough, but they were inconsistent and not always there. Federer would still have added three or four additional titles to his resume by all odds.

Prime Federer would have blanked Kafelnikov, Courier and most of the other random winners, and he probably takes a few from Bruguera as well.

For the better part of 7 years, Fed barely lost to anyone not named Rafa. That never happened in the 90s. Even the best would consistently trade masters finals and lose to no names. The bottom line is there are very few players that even had the talent to beat him on clay (maybe Bruguera, Muster, Guga, Coria, Moya and courier) and those guys would only show that level once in a blue moon. Other than Guga, I very much doubt any from the above would even have a winning record against him. Witness the demolition of Ferrero and Moya.

I feel like the clay specialists back then had a great advantage that has largely evaporated.. Nowadays everyone has learned to play well on clay.

sexybeast
11-25-2011, 07:03 AM
Yeah, this is kind of fun but utterly meaningless in the end but so is everything in life before or later. One question that must be asked is if Federer would be added to the 90s or replaced with Sampras. If you just add Sampras to the 00s and make him compete with Federer, Nadal and Djokovic things dont look pretty but if he replaces Federer he could do alot of damage in the 00s.

Anyway, here is what I think about this Federer if he replaces Sampras in the 90s, let us say he is born 12 years earlier so we can speculate on the whole 90s instead of go into the early 00s(his 03 would be 91 and his 11 would be 99):

AO: Seriously I consider Agassi's game more adapted to slow hardcourts but then again Agassi only won 1 AO in the 90s and the rest at old age, Federer might be beaten many times by Agassi in Indian Wells and Miami but Agassi wouldnt be a problem in AO because he would be somewhere else most years. Lets say Federer gets to 8 SFs between 92-09 because that is what he is able to do in any era and there are seriously easy draws here to be taken advantage. He would win 94, 97 and he would win 98, 99 and against Courier in the early 90s let us say there would be a draw, Agassi takes one 95 and you still have 96 against an old Becker. I think 5 AOs would be fully a reasonable number.

RG: Here is one place where you can have very different opinions, someone might think many people winning slams means great diversity and great number of quality players while I think variation means a lack of a dominant force, was there any in the 90s? Sure, there was Muster but he was not a force in RG, you have some very clownish things going on in the early 90s with american hardcourters ignoring clay season and reaching finals of RG because of the lack of this great player made RG open for grabs by even those who dont care about clay, you had 17 year old defeating S and V and you had 30 year olds defeating americans in finals. It was strange, between 74-88 almost every year the winner was named Borg, Wilander or Lendl but later suddenly anyone could win the tournament. Federer as a dominant force on clay should take full advantage of the many easy draws and some more difficult ones aswell, Kuerten and Bruguera would be a problem but no one else really. When you throw around alot of names it is easy to think that every RG champ in the 90s beat Muster, Bruguera and company but this wasnt the case. Federer could win RG 96 with closed eyes and never face a great claycourter, RG 98 and 99 shouldnt be too difficult, the early 90s Courier&Agassi dominated RGs would be picked like candy by Federer. Bruguera 93-94 and Muster 95 are beatable aswell but I wont speculate too much on that, Muster was in a hell of a form 95 but then again could he beat Federer when it would be such a horrible matchup for him? Bruguera 93-94 would be a bad matchup for Federer but he is not in any way unbeatable like Nadal, Bruguera lost in his best years 93-95 to Koevermans (155), twice to Haarhuis (50), Edberg, Krajicek, Michael Stich, Francis Davin (93rd), Ivanisevic, Schaller (46), Chang, Pescosolido (110) and the list goes on. So, this is certanly no Nadal we are talking about. Even if he wouldnt win in 93-95 and 97 when Bruguera, Kuerten and Muster dominated he could get 4 other easily without ever playing any of them, let us say 92, 96, 98 and 99. So I would say 4 is a good conservative number.

Wimbledon: Complicated story here, power tennis all the way it was in Wimbledon in the 90s. Federer doesnt have that power, but the flair of Stich got him 1 title so Federer could get something ofcourse. I think Becker might have been a difficult matchup for Federer with his power game in Wimbledon. But I think from mid 90s and forward things look alot easier. 93 with Courier in the final should no bet be difficult and Ivanisevic would be his Roddick but let us say Krajicek in the form he was 96 would get his way against Federer and even Becker 95 and the rest of the years it is pretty easy so I give him 5 Wimbledons in this era.

Usopen: I dont see Federer dominating peak Agassi like Sampras did, I just dont think Agassi would be a great matchup for Federer. So he would probably divide some tournaments with him, also Edberg in the early 90s would not be easy but the late 90s were kind of wide open with weak opposition. I think he would win 4 Usopens, I think he would beat players like Rafter more often than not and he would probably win atleast one from Agassi, years like 96 when Chang was in the final would be a slaughter aswell and 93 was just another freeway.

A total of 18 slams and I see great probability of a Grand Slam in the weak late 90s (specially 97-99). Probably 4 YECs aswell with the greater indoor era of the early and mid 90s.

MIMIC
11-25-2011, 07:10 AM
The classic what if scenario, it must be off season already.

:)

sexybeast
11-25-2011, 07:15 AM
Yes kuerten is a better clay courter and Muster would have played him tough, but they were inconsistent and not always there.

That is the key word, inconsistency is what made clay so exciting in the 90s, virtually anyone could win and when I say ANYONE I dont mean 4-5 great claycourters but I mean justany baseline hardcourter, 17 year olds coming out of nowhere, serve and volleyers and 30 year olds past their peaks.

Action Jackson
11-25-2011, 07:29 AM
:)

Not like it's false. You get a bunch of people who can prove conclusively and have that special time machine that can automatically make conditions generic across generations before and after, therefore predicting results with clarity. There should be a patent on it

Shinoj
11-25-2011, 08:02 AM
To be honest, he would steamroll most of them from the 90s. Only Agassi and Sampras would prove competition.

dodo
11-25-2011, 08:12 AM
He would most likely end up the GOAT in any era. Probably wont dominate Wimbly like that and will end up with a couple less slams, but all the others will have to give up 10+ slams between them as well. Surely would get several career slams and likely a CYGS. This kind of speculation will only lead to tarding though :(
Biggest threat of the 90s were big servers. While Karlovic and Roddick are certainly no Sampras/Krajicek/Becker, they did well demonstrate that Fed is (one of?) the best at neutralizing that particular weapon while at the same time possessing one of the best ever serves himself.

Forehander
11-25-2011, 08:45 AM
Out of all the guys today, I think Fed would fair the most well in say the 90s and early 00s.. 16 slams though?? No way.

Grass: Pete would still be victorious.. Fed would get a few Pete was the man on grass in his prime. It was perfect for his game there And you have some other guys around at the time (Kraijeck, GOran, Andre, Rafter, Becker, etc).. 6 wimbledon titles for Fed here? No way. The grass field was WAY superior back then.

AO- Fed would be the man here, though you got Andre who was himself an AO GOAT candidate. Pete got 2 AO titles in that time period so that would be interesting and a few others like Courier etc. Though Fed would probably come out on top. The court suits his game real well

French Open: Ahh.. You don't have a Nadal but you have many more threats (Courier, Bruguera, Andre, Kafelnikov,Muster Guga later on) Fed would get a few but wouldn't dominate clay.

USO) You got Sampras with the homecrowd advantage, you got Andre who was pretty awesome there ( Straight setted Roger back in 2001, and took him 5 sets at 34 years of age in 04 and played him tough in 05 with a bad back) , you got Rafter later on. Fed would win some USO titles but not as many as he has now.

Indoors: You got Sampras, Becker, Edberg early on, Dre a few times. Fed grabs some but not nearly the amount he has now under this JOKE indoor era full of pushers, defenders, non aggressive attackers etc.


Overrall.. Fed doesn't dominate as he did in the 00's but the landscape probably looks like it did in the 80s with all time greats taking slams from each other. Fed, Sampras, Andre would ALL be getting their piece of the pie. Guys like Courier, Bruguera, Guga, 95 Muster, and some others just below may steal a few from the top as well.

Just speculation.. But thats how I always felt it would have gone. The 90s would have been a duplicate of the 80s. And provided some of all the all time best classic matches and rivalries in HISTORY.. Bar none


An era for great rivlaries and all time greats.. Unfortunately,. the problem here is that Dre's, Pete's and Roger's achievements would have been LESS)

You actually post some decent comments at times but somehow you always end up clowning about Sampras as it progresses when people start making fun of you. You should just stick to posting normally.

Back to the topic I think the play style would be so different with old technology and technique. But with Federer's monster talent I still think he would still dominate. Other than Sampras I really don't see anybody else threatening him.

Shirogane
11-25-2011, 09:02 AM
I don't like to compare different eras, but it wouldn't shock me to see him as a multi-slam champ, winning 3 out of 4 like many greats and successfully defending some of them. As I've already said before, the tricky one would obviously be RG, which I think he could have ended up winning once, twice or none at all. :shrug:

And yeah, I think Federer playing in the same era as Sampras and Agassi would have created some very interesting dynamics. :yeah:

sexybeast
11-25-2011, 10:44 AM
If Sampras and Federer plays in the same era they would obviously steal enought from each other to atleast make one look like less than a GOAT candidate, possibly both. Federer would still be able to dominate clay and AO but atleast he would have to divide Wimbledon titles with Sampras and Usopen would also be difficult as Sampras would have homecrows and everything. I think Sampras is a good matchup for him but there would be so few points deciding the outcome and I dont think Federer is that good at tight games, he likes to fly away with matches on his terms.

juan27
11-25-2011, 12:14 PM
Out of all the guys today, I think Fed would fair the most well in say the 90s and early 00s.. 16 slams though?? No way.

Grass: Pete would still be victorious.. Fed would get a few Pete was the man on grass in his prime. It was perfect for his game there And you have some other guys around at the time (Kraijeck, GOran, Andre, Rafter, Becker, etc).. 6 wimbledon titles for Fed here? No way. The grass field was WAY superior back then.

AO- Fed would be the man here, though you got Andre who was himself an AO GOAT candidate. Pete got 2 AO titles in that time period so that would be interesting and a few others like Courier etc. Though Fed would probably come out on top. The court suits his game real well

French Open: Ahh.. You don't have a Nadal but you have many more threats (Courier, Bruguera, Andre, Kafelnikov,Muster Guga later on) Fed would get a few but wouldn't dominate clay.

USO) You got Sampras with the homecrowd advantage, you got Andre who was pretty awesome there ( Straight setted Roger back in 2001, and took him 5 sets at 34 years of age in 04 and played him tough in 05 with a bad back) , you got Rafter later on. Fed would win some USO titles but not as many as he has now.

Indoors: You got Sampras, Becker, Edberg early on, Dre a few times. Fed grabs some but not nearly the amount he has now under this JOKE indoor era full of pushers, defenders, non aggressive attackers etc.


Overrall.. Fed doesn't dominate as he did in the 00's but the landscape probably looks like it did in the 80s with all time greats taking slams from each other. Fed, Sampras, Andre would ALL be getting their piece of the pie. Guys like Courier, Bruguera, Guga, 95 Muster, and some others just below may steal a few from the top as well.

Just speculation.. But thats how I always felt it would have gone. The 90s would have been a duplicate of the 80s. And provided some of all the all time best classic matches and rivalries in HISTORY.. Bar none


An era for great rivlaries and all time greats.. Unfortunately,. the problem here is that Dre's, Pete's and Roger's achievements would have been LESS)

good post man!!!

if federer was played in the 90s , for sure that era should be similar to the 80s with great players winning slams like andre , pete and roger.

maybe andre with federer and pete doesn`t won 8 grand slams

Chirag
11-25-2011, 12:50 PM
Muster and Kuerton were pure clay court machines, but clay back then was more dirty, the balls heavier and the game slower. So there were more grinders than now, and that style of play - grinding - was well rewarded.

On grass, everything was abbreviated, lightning quick and gone by in a flash. On clay, it was almost as if players could run backwards to get the slow-motion ball before it hit the back stop.

Now, there's not much difference in the tempos between surfaces, though are differences in the bounce. I think Roger would do well in any era - and he grew up learning on clay - and the fact that the 90's didn't see either a Nadal or Borg totally dominate the FO means he'd have a shot. But it's really a tough one to say with any certainty. I'd be reluctant because on the forum the belief is that Roger can do anything - except when he faces Nadal - but he IS exceptionally gifted.

I think he'd have to face the choices men had back then and specialise: he'd have concentrated more on Wimbledon because it was more prestigious - and so I'd say his clay game would suffer.

SetSampras
11-25-2011, 03:08 PM
Some people should remember, Fed would have to utilize much more of the serve-volley attack game to win the 90s then he has since 04-on or so where he has played the "conservtive baseliner" safe role.. One of the downsides of this is, you generally go for more, overhit your shots more, make more errors and are less consistent. Fed was much less consistent with the attack serve-volley role. pre 04. Of course he was younger, but thats just the nature of the beast when you play that style of game.

It was hard to dominate back then unless you had someone like Andre's game from the baseline.. Clean hitting, and hitting big passing shots and put some mustard back on the return of serve taking the ball early and running your opponent left to right Especially the fast surfaces.

rocketassist
11-25-2011, 03:10 PM
Fed's always loathed topspin players- people think it's just Nadal but forget a past-it Costa beat him in 05, and he got schooled by Felix Mantilla in Rome in 2003.

EddieNero
11-25-2011, 03:15 PM
Fed's always loathed topspin players- people think it's just Nadal but forget a past-it Costa beat him in 05, and he got schooled by Felix Mantilla in Rome in 2003.

Federer was an uber clown back then.
Once he peaked, Fed owned everyone except Nadal on clay.

Fedex
11-25-2011, 03:19 PM
Dominating on one surface ( slower rebound ace AO) isn't as exactly dominating the whole tour.. Fed doesn't see the same dominance on grass, USO, Indoors in the 90s as he does today.. He sees success but not "overrall dominant" success every year every tournament that he has saw from 04-on for almost year in year out. There would be issues on all the surfaces.. GREATER issues then he saw from 04-08 or 09


Sampras, Becker, Edberg ( early on),Agassi, some of the other classic grass court or hardcourt attackers aint exactly like shooting fish in a barrel and dominating Roddick, hewitt, Davydenko,Baghaditis, Gonzales, Murray, Fish, Tsonga or freakin James BLAKE etc.

I really like how Becker, and especially Edberg are thrown into the "Sampras era" mix, when they won the majority of their majors before Sampras was the dominant player in men's tennis.

Fedex
11-25-2011, 03:25 PM
Some people should remember, Fed would have to utilize much more of the serve-volley attack game to win the 90s then he has since 04-on or so where he has played the "conservtive baseliner" safe role.. One of the downsides of this is, you generally go for more, overhit your shots more, make more errors and are less consistent. Fed was much less consistent with the attack serve-volley role. pre 04. Of course he was younger, but thats just the nature of the beast when you play that style of game.

It was hard to dominate back then unless you had someone like Andre's game from the baseline.. Clean hitting, and hitting big passing shots and put some mustard back on the return of serve taking the ball early and running your opponent left to right Especially the fast surfaces.

lol

I like how Fed is described as a "conservative baseliner".

rocketassist
11-25-2011, 03:29 PM
Federer was an uber clown back then.
Once he peaked, Fed owned everyone except Nadal on clay.

In 06-07 he peaked on clay for sure.

Another topspin guy he struggled against was Acasuso in 09 but the Argentine choked. He doesn't like playing these grinders one bit, never has.

sexybeast
11-25-2011, 03:50 PM
In 06-07 he peaked on clay for sure.

Another topspin guy he struggled against was Acasuso in 09 but the Argentine choked. He doesn't like playing these grinders one bit, never has.

Yeah, good thing in the 90s you had a better chanse than in Nadal's era to win a slam without playing anyone with heavy topspin to the backhand. Also, the Costa match was in 2004.

Haelfix
11-25-2011, 04:24 PM
Federers clay court game actually improved as he aged. He probably peaked in 2006, but his 2009 and 2011 form is basically equivalent. He just plays much more clever tennis for the surface, and added things like the dropshot and a few moon balls at the right time. Also he has been helped by the courts speeding up.

In 2003-2005 he suffered from the usual problem of attacking tennis not faring well on the surface. It led him to be inconsistent at times, and his shot selection was problematic.

Johnny Groove
11-25-2011, 05:21 PM
Let's say Federer gets into a time machine and was born 10 years earlier, August of 1971.

He would hit his peak around 1993, when Sampras did. So I could easily see a Wimbledon 1993 final with Sampras vs. Fed, as well as a USO final vs. Sampras later that summer. Let's say Fed wins Wimbledon and Sampras the USO.

In 94, Fed I think would win the Aussie. At the French, even Sampras made the QF, I think Fed could have made a run here, but I don't think he'd beat Bruguera here. Wimbledon 94 would most likely be Sampras-Fed again, and I think Sampras would take it this time. At the USO, Fed could surely make the finals and beat Agassi in the final.

In 95, Agassi would take the AO for sure, he was unbeatable that tournament. Muster would definitely win the French. At Wimbledon, Sampras would take it as he did in reality, the field was really tough that year. Fed would then win the USO in 95 for sure.

In 96, Fed would stroll to the title in Australia. I think if Fed is gonna win any time at Roland Garros, it would be in 96. He would also win Wimbledon after Sampras lost to Krajicek, but Sampras would stop the CYGS in New York. Fed's first 3 slam season.

In 97, Fed would win the Aussie as Sampras was playing only so-so and still winning the event. At the French, Guga would still win. At Wimbledon, it was a bit of a mug draw, but I think Sampras would beat Fed in an epic 5 setter in the final. At the USO, Rafter would be too good.

In 98, Roger would bounce back and beat Korda in the Aussie final in an epic 5 setter. Mantilla or Corretja would beat him at the French, but Roger would avenge the defeat to Sampras by winning Wimbledon and the USO for his 2nd 3 slam season.

In 99, Roger would easily win the AO, and would win the French as well. Sampras would win Wimbledon, he was too good that year, and Agassi winning the US Open over Fed.

In 2000, Roger would avenge the USO loss to Agassi by winning the AO. Guga would win the French, Sampras Wimbledon, and Safin again would win the USO.

In 2001, Agassi would get Fed at the Aussie, Guga would repeat, Ivanisevic would have his fairy tale, but Fed would win the USO.

In 2002, Roger would take the AO, Costa the French, Federer Wimbledon, and Sampras would win the USO.

And then Agassi at the AO in 2003, JCF the French in 2003, and then the time travel machine malfunctions around Wimbledon 2003.

Total haul would be Wimbledon 93, Aussie 94, USO 94, USO 95, Aussie 96, RG 96, Wimbledon 96, Aussie 97, Aussie 98, Wimbledon 98, USO 98, Aussie 99, RG 99, AO 2000, USO 2001, AO 2002, Wimbledon 2002.

He'd have 6 AO's, two more than he has now.

He'd have 2 RG's, one more than he has now.

He'd have 4 Wimbledons, 2 less than he has now.

He'd have 4 USO, one less than he has now.

At the end of the day, he would still have 16 slams :shrug:

Sampras would not have 14, he'd have only 9.

Agassi would not have 8, he'd have only 6.

So basically Fed would still be Fed but Sampras would be Nadal and Agassi would be Djokovic.

A cooler question might be Sampras vs. the 00's.

sexybeast
11-25-2011, 05:30 PM
Let's say Federer gets into a time machine and was born 10 years earlier, August of 1971.

He would hit his peak around 1993, when Sampras did. So I could easily see a Wimbledon 1993 final with Sampras vs. Fed, as well as a USO final vs. Sampras later that summer. Let's say Fed wins Wimbledon and Sampras the USO.

In 94, Fed I think would win the Aussie. At the French, even Sampras made the QF, I think Fed could have made a run here, but I don't think he'd beat Bruguera here. Wimbledon 94 would most likely be Sampras-Fed again, and I think Sampras would take it this time. At the USO, Fed could surely make the finals and beat Agassi in the final.

In 95, Agassi would take the AO for sure, he was unbeatable that tournament. Muster would definitely win the French. At Wimbledon, Sampras would take it as he did in reality, the field was really tough that year. Fed would then win the USO in 95 for sure.

In 96, Fed would stroll to the title in Australia. I think if Fed is gonna win any time at Roland Garros, it would be in 96. He would also win Wimbledon after Sampras lost to Krajicek, but Sampras would stop the CYGS in New York. Fed's first 3 slam season.

In 97, Fed would win the Aussie as Sampras was playing only so-so and still winning the event. At the French, Guga would still win. At Wimbledon, it was a bit of a mug draw, but I think Sampras would beat Fed in an epic 5 setter in the final. At the USO, Rafter would be too good.

In 98, Roger would bounce back and beat Korda in the Aussie final in an epic 5 setter. Mantilla or Corretja would beat him at the French, but Roger would avenge the defeat to Sampras by winning Wimbledon and the USO for his 2nd 3 slam season.

In 99, Roger would easily win the AO, and would win the French as well. Sampras would win Wimbledon, he was too good that year, and Agassi winning the US Open over Fed.

In 2000, Roger would avenge the USO loss to Agassi by winning the AO. Guga would win the French, Sampras Wimbledon, and Safin again would win the USO.

In 2001, Agassi would get Fed at the Aussie, Guga would repeat, Ivanisevic would have his fairy tale, but Fed would win the USO.

In 2002, Roger would take the AO, Costa the French, Federer Wimbledon, and Sampras would win the USO.

And then Agassi at the AO in 2003, JCF the French in 2003, and then the time travel machine malfunctions around Wimbledon 2003.

Total haul would be Wimbledon 93, Aussie 94, USO 94, USO 95, Aussie 96, RG 96, Wimbledon 96, Aussie 97, Aussie 98, Wimbledon 98, USO 98, Aussie 99, RG 99, AO 2000, USO 2001, AO 2002, Wimbledon 2002.

He'd have 6 AO's, two more than he has now.

He'd have 2 RG's, one more than he has now.

He'd have 4 Wimbledons, 2 less than he has now.

He'd have 4 USO, one less than he has now.

At the end of the day, he would still have 16 slams :shrug:

Sampras would not have 14, he'd have only 9.

Agassi would not have 8, he'd have only 6.

So basically Fed would still be Fed but Sampras would be Nadal and Agassi would be Djokovic.

A cooler question might be Sampras vs. the 00's.

Good list and I follow how you reason, but if 96 Federer is in 06 Federer form he should win the calendar grand slam, Sampras wasnt playing that well and had a cakewalk to the title. He was also sick, almost lost to Corretja. Let Roger have a well deserved Grand slam atleast in a virtual universe, will you?

Sampras in the 00s is not cool because he wouldnt be able to adapt to the conditions, new raquets that hit crazy topspin and new slower surfaces. It would make him just look bad and fortunate which is not really the case.

SetSampras
11-25-2011, 05:33 PM
ROFL.. Did no other players exist in the 90s or something? You still had solid talented guys besides Sampras and Agassi around ya know during that entire decade . Who's to say they wouldn't have gotten some big titles as well?

Very different conditions. Different type of slower clay, more difficult to hit the opponent off the court as it is today at the French, better grass field, and a USO field at the top.

Johnny Groove
11-25-2011, 05:39 PM
ROFL.. Did no other players exist in the 90s or something? You still had solid talented guys besides Sampras and Agassi around ya know during that entire decade . Who's to say they wouldn't have gotten some big titles as well?

Very different conditions. Different type of slower clay, more difficult to hit the opponent off the court as it is today at the French, better grass field, and a USO field at the top.

Have you taken a look at the slam draws of most slams in the 90's? From the QF on, it is filled with unseeded players. Top 10, even top 5 seeds would regularly crash out in the first week of slams. If any of the top 4 lose before SF of a slam these days, it is big news. Fed's consistency would serve him very well in the rollercoaster 90's.

HKz
11-25-2011, 05:40 PM
ROFL.. Did no other players exist in the 90s or something? You still had solid talented guys besides Sampras and Agassi around ya know during that entire decade . Who's to say they wouldn't have gotten some big titles as well?

Very different conditions. Different type of slower clay, more difficult to hit the opponent off the court as it is today at the French, better grass field, and a USO field at the top.

Pioline was real talent :rolleyes:
Ivanisevic was a mental king :rolleyes:
Becker was play his best tennis :rolleyes:
Martin was .... :rolleyes:

Johnny Groove
11-25-2011, 05:41 PM
Good list and I follow how you reason, but if 96 Federer is in 06 Federer form he should win the calendar grand slam, Sampras wasnt playing that well and had a cakewalk to the title. He was also sick, almost lost to Corretja. Let Roger have a well deserved Grand slam atleast in a virtual universe, will you?

Sampras in the 00s is not cool because he wouldnt be able to adapt to the conditions, new raquets that hit crazy topspin and new slower surfaces. It would make him just look bad and fortunate which is not really the case.

:lol: If I give Roger the Slam, I'd have to take away a different slam. Maybe the 98 AO final vs. Korda? But imagine the controversy of Korda's doping allegation had he beaten Roger 9-7 in the 5th set of the final?

sexybeast
11-25-2011, 05:46 PM
:lol: If I give Roger the Slam, I'd have to take away a different slam. Maybe the 98 AO final vs. Korda? But imagine the controversy of Korda's doping allegation had he beaten Roger 9-7 in the 5th set of the final?

I have no idea why someone like Korda would be able to beat Roger in AO (specially when Korda was 30!). Have instead red hot Rafter 98 who was winning absolutely everything pre USopen take home the title in an epic 5 setter against Roger.

Johnny Groove
11-25-2011, 05:48 PM
I have no idea why someone like Korda would be able to beat Roger in AO (specially when Korda was 30!). Have instead red hot Rafter 98 who was winning absolutely everything pre USopen take home the title in an epic 5 setter against Roger.

Korda being lefty and juiced up was my thinking.

DrJules
11-25-2011, 05:48 PM
Out of all the guys today, I think Fed would fair the most well in say the 90s and early 00s.. 16 slams though?? No way.

Grass: Pete would still be victorious.. Fed would get a few Pete was the man on grass in his prime. It was perfect for his game there And you have some other guys around at the time (Kraijeck, GOran, Andre, Rafter, Becker, etc).. 6 wimbledon titles for Fed here? No way. The grass field was WAY superior back then.

AO- Fed would be the man here, though you got Andre who was himself an AO GOAT candidate. Pete got 2 AO titles in that time period so that would be interesting and a few others like Courier etc. Though Fed would probably come out on top. The court suits his game real well

French Open: Ahh.. You don't have a Nadal but you have many more threats (Courier, Bruguera, Andre, Kafelnikov,Muster Guga later on) Fed would get a few but wouldn't dominate clay.

USO) You got Sampras with the homecrowd advantage, you got Andre who was pretty awesome there ( Straight setted Roger back in 2001, and took him 5 sets at 34 years of age in 04 and played him tough in 05 with a bad back) , you got Rafter later on. Fed would win some USO titles but not as many as he has now.

Indoors: You got Sampras, Becker, Edberg early on, Dre a few times. Fed grabs some but not nearly the amount he has now under this JOKE indoor era full of pushers, defenders, non aggressive attackers etc.


Overrall.. Fed doesn't dominate as he did in the 00's but the landscape probably looks like it did in the 80s with all time greats taking slams from each other. Fed, Sampras, Andre would ALL be getting their piece of the pie. Guys like Courier, Bruguera, Guga, 95 Muster, and some others just below may steal a few from the top as well.

Just speculation.. But thats how I always felt it would have gone. The 90s would have been a duplicate of the 80s. And provided some of all the all time best classic matches and rivalries in HISTORY.. Bar none


An era for great rivlaries and all time greats.. Unfortunately,. the problem here is that Dre's, Pete's and Roger's achievements would have been LESS)

Overall a significant amount of rational and logical idea included in that post.

Obviously pack another great player in the era reduces everybodies GS count. Yes Federer would win several fewer, but so would Sampras and Agassi would win less.

Agree fully that Federer would be more effective than either Djokovic or Nadal in the 90s. I consider the Start da Game assertion that Nadal would adapt best to be very unlikely based on Nadal's game on faster and lower bouncing surfaces.

SetSampras
11-25-2011, 05:51 PM
Have you taken a look at the slam draws of most slams in the 90's? From the QF on, it is filled with unseeded players. Top 10, even top 5 seeds would regularly crash out in the first week of slams. If any of the top 4 lose before SF of a slam these days, it is big news. Fed's consistency would serve him very well in the rollercoaster 90's.


I have and I don't see where outside of the Australian Open Fed TRULY dominates:

Wimbledon
1993- Pete beats 03 Fed here
1994- Pete is better then 04 Fed
95- Pete and Goran or Becker.. one of them stop Fed
96- Fed wins
97- Pete wins
98- 08 Fed wins
99-Pete destroys

So I got what.. 2 maybe 3 wimbledon titles for Fed here. Not exactly "domination"

A0: Where Fed's main domination takes places

95 Andre can reasonably beat 05 Fed here.. It would be close, 94 or 97 Pete can possibly stop him.. But Fed wins the majority. 4-5 AO titles



Roland Garros: Whipe about the first 5 years of the French Open here.. 1990-1995 Fed has NO CHANCE. Agassi, Courier, Bruguera, 95 Muster etc. He didn't hit his stride until 06. I give him the 96 French, not the 97 French as Guga stands in his way. I give him the 98 French and 99 French..

1995- Muster pisses on Fed
1996- Fed
1997-Guga
1998-Fed
1999- Fed
3 French Open titles



US. Open

Pre-04 Fed didn't really do anything

1994- Andre wins ( Fed needs 5 SETS against old 34 year old Andre in 04)
1995-Pete wins (Fed struggling with OLD Agassi on a broken back in 5)
96-Pete's sick Fed wins
97 Fed wins
98- I kind of like Rafter personally here
99- Agassi, If Pete is healthy, he wins since he was playing some of his most dominant tennis before the injury. Both playing better tennis then 09 Fed here

Fed gets probably 2 in this time period


So yes its reasonable Fed still gets double figures.. 16 slams? :haha:


Then we get into early 00's.. Which is wishy washy. Andre by that time would probably be the main dog with his resurgence and with Fed and Pete burning out due to battling each other year in year out for almost the entire decade of the 90s

Start da Game
11-25-2011, 05:54 PM
2 or 3 hardcourt slams at best, that too if players like korda and rios showed some mercy......forget about wimbledon and french......

shiaben
11-25-2011, 05:55 PM
Maybe he wouldn't have 16. But he'd still be an amazing contender. I can imagine him torturing Sampras day and night with passing shots. You can't SV and BS your way against Federer. Might work the first few times but on the next encounters he'll stop the guy.

sexybeast
11-25-2011, 06:00 PM
I have and I don't see where outside of the Australian Open Fed TRULY dominates:

Wimbledon
1993- Pete beats 03 Fed here
1994- Pete is better then 04 Fed
95- Pete and Goran or Becker.. one of them stop Fed
96- Fed wins
97- Pete wins
98- 08 Fed wins
99-Pete destroys

So I got what.. 2 maybe 3 wimbledon titles for Fed here. Not exactly "domination"

A0: Where Fed's main domination takes places

95 Andre can reasonably beat 05 Fed here.. It would be close, 94 or 97 Pete can possibly stop him.. But Fed wins the majority. 4-5 AO titles



Roland Garros: Whipe about the first 5 years of the French Open here.. 1990-1995 Fed has NO CHANCE. Agassi, Courier, Bruguera, 95 Muster etc. He didn't hit his stride until 06. I give him the 96 French, not the 97 French as Guga stands in his way. I give him the 98 French and 99 French..

3 French Open titles



US. Open

Pre-04 Fed didn't really do anything

1994- Andre wins
1995-Pete wins
96-Pete's sick Fed wins
97 Fed wins
98- I kind of like Rafter personally here
99- Agassi, If Pete is healthy, he wins since he was playing some of his most dominant tennis before the injury. Both playing better tennis then 09 Fed here

Fed gets probably 2 in this time period


So yes its reasonable Fed still gets double figures.. 16 slams? :haha:


Then we get into early 00's.. Which is wishy washy

I think you are beeing reasonable in every way here even if I dont completely agree with you on everything (I would give Fed 93 or 94 Wimbledon) but you forgot that Feds career would continue into the early 00s and there I would speculate like this:

AO 00-01 is divided between Agassi and Federer, Federer should easily win AO 02
Wimbledon 02 Federer should win
Usopen 00, 01 or 02 should also be Federer's, I am conservative and give him one of them.

So there Fed could easily get another 4, so your total should get close to 16 anyway.

Also, Muster would never piss on Fedeerer, Federer would be an awful matchup for Muster. I asume you have Federer losing before the final.

Johnny Groove
11-25-2011, 06:12 PM
I think Nadal would win 8 slams at least in the 90's.

bjurra
11-25-2011, 06:15 PM
He would have won more RGs and fewer Wimbledons...

Btw, Muster would never piss on Fed. Ever.

sexybeast
11-25-2011, 06:19 PM
I think Nadal would win 8 slams at least in the 90's.

6 RGs and 2 AOs?

HKz
11-25-2011, 06:21 PM
Overall a significant amount of rational and logical idea included in that post.

Obviously pack another great player in the era reduces everybodies GS count. Yes Federer would win several fewer, but so would Sampras and Agassi would win less.

Agree fully that Federer would be more effective than either Djokovic or Nadal in the 90s. I consider the Start da Game assertion that Nadal would adapt best to be very unlikely based on Nadal's game on faster and lower bouncing surfaces.

Any of tard da fail's posts are irrational and have no basis. Nadal struggles to play indoors and struggles on the fastest current surfaces in the world (Cincinnati for example) so what makes these fools think Nadal would have the same overall tour success in the 90s with his current play style.

Again, as I mentioned it is a poor question to begin with because even with Nadal, who knows how his style would have developed had he been born to play in the 90s. Would he have been a lefty still? Would he still utilize a lot of topspin? We all know Nadal's game has benefited greatly from the advancement of racket/string technology, coupled with the surface types, more so than like a Federer. Plus it is always very difficult to analyze these players that have unconventional styles compared to players who hit the ball very traditional like.

2 or 3 hardcourt slams at best, that too if players like korda and rios showed some mercy......forget about wimbledon and french......

Always with the poor posts. Rios are you kidding me? Sure he was a talented player, but out of 26 Grand Slam main draw entries, he made the QFs 6 times and only one of those 6 times he progressed past and go to the final. Not to mention he had several absences from AO/Wimbledon. Aside from his 98 finals run in Australia, he was not a high favorite for slam titles. And then to add to the joke, you mention Korda, the player Rios lost to in that AO final? His "consistency" at the slams was even worse. Out of 39 main draw slam appearances, he made 6 QFs and on two of those occasions he reached the final. So you're going to sit here and tell me they are going to regularly meet Federer and get several wins? tard da fail, just stop posting once and for all -.- you just keep embarrassing yourself.

DrJules
11-25-2011, 06:26 PM
None of the players from the 90s would have given Federer anywhere near as many problems as Nadal.

sexybeast
11-25-2011, 06:29 PM
None of the players from the 90s would have given Federer anywhere near as many problems as Nadal.

I think Agassi would be troublesome (ofcourse not like Nadal), but most of the time he wouldnt even be around to play him.

Ibracadabra
11-25-2011, 06:29 PM
he would of got more slams, as nadal wouldn't of been there and we know how fed deals with big serves, sampras wouldn't of been happy lets say.

Johnny Groove
11-25-2011, 06:33 PM
6 RGs and 2 AOs?

Well we have to qualify this. If Fed hits his stride fictionally in 93, then I think Rafa should fictionally turn 19 in 93. Ergo, 93=2005, 94=2006, 95=2007, 96=2008, 97=2009, 98=2010, 99=2011

Nadal would win the French in 93, 94, 95, 96, lose to Guga in 97, win it in 98 and 99.

AO, Nadal would win in 96, hitting his 08 form and beating a past prime Becker in the finals. He would also win it in 98, but lose to Kafelnikov in the 99 final.

Wimbledon, Nadal would sneak the title in 96.

USO, I think Nadal would have won the title in 96 and would split the 97 and 98 finals with Rafter.

Overall, Nadal would have 2 AO, 6 RG, 1 Wimbledon, and 2 USO in the 90's, IMO. 11 slams total.

Johnny Groove
11-25-2011, 06:38 PM
I think Agassi would be troublesome (ofcourse not like Nadal), but most of the time he wouldnt even be around to play him.

Interesting to think of these scenarios here.

Sampras would surely give Nadal problems on anything other than clay. Grass maybe 90-10 for Pete, and 60-40 on hard for Pete. Indoors might be 100-0 for Pete while clay would be 100-0 for Rafa. Agassi would be a better matchup for Nadal, and Rafa would beat him 95-5 on clay, maybe 50-50 on hard, and perhaps 60-40 Agassi on grass and definitely Agassi indoors.

Most would assume Fed and Sampras would split their matches, maybe 60-40 on hard for Fed, and 40-60 on grass for Pete, with Fed owning him on clay. Agassi would be able to beat Fed on clay I think, and make it more like 50-50 on hard for Fed. Grass, though, Roger would beat him more often.

Start da Game
11-25-2011, 06:45 PM
it's just pathetic that blind breed can't fathom simple things and blindly go by what they have done in this era......the field in the 90s was vastly spread more evenly, had way more variety and depth......you would never be sure what would happen on a given day......and what about the surfaces? all that makes reaching the semis and finals stages that much more harder......

some of the semis and finals of the 90s may not have matched the current day intense battles from the back but reaching those stages was a lot tougher back in the day......that's where the previous era scores quite heavily in my honest opinion......where this era scores is the insane consistency of top players but again that's somewhat understandable......

if somebody in the 90s jokingly expressed a desire to see two career grandslams in a span of 7 years, that would be like "are you fucking kidding me?"......you can just imagine the rest......

HKz
11-25-2011, 06:46 PM
Well we have to qualify this. If Fed hits his stride fictionally in 93, then I think Rafa should fictionally turn 19 in 93. Ergo, 93=2005, 94=2006, 95=2007, 96=2008, 97=2009, 98=2010, 99=2011

Nadal would win the French in 93, 94, 95, 96, lose to Guga in 97, win it in 98 and 99.

AO, Nadal would win in 96, hitting his 08 form and beating a past prime Becker in the finals. He would also win it in 98, but lose to Kafelnikov in the 99 final.

Wimbledon, Nadal would sneak the title in 96.

USO, I think Nadal would have won the title in 96 and would split the 97 and 98 finals with Rafter.

Overall, Nadal would have 2 AO, 6 RG, 1 Wimbledon, and 2 USO in the 90's, IMO. 11 slams total.

Wimbledon I'd have to really disagree. What true clay courter from the 90s actually progressed past the QFs? If I remember correctly, Guga made the Wimbledon QFs once getting an utter joke of a draw until he met Agassi who school him in straight sets. And Guga was a solid fast court player. And we all know have poor Muster was on the grass and he was also a very decent hard court player. Kafelnikov who was an excellent hard court player only made the QF once as well. Moya made the 4th round at the tail end of his career and he was a solid fast court player. Gomez also only made one QF appearance. Bruguera made a 4th round once while Costa made two 2nd rounds.

The only two were Agassi and Courier who had great success at Roland Garros and also had good success on grass, but their cases are pretty much the opposite considering they are not naturally clay courters like many of the players I mentioned prior and their ground games translated well on all the surfaces. Nadal's groundstrokes would prove to be too much of a liability with the 90s grass as and revels on good bounces and time to set up.

it's just pathetic that blind breed can't fathom simple things and blindly go by what they have done in this era......the field in the 90s was vastly spread more evenly, had way more variety and depth......you would never be sure what would happen on a given day......and what about the surfaces? all that makes reaching the semis and finals stages that much more harder......

some of the semis and finals of the 90s may not have matched the current day intense battles from the back but reaching those stages was a lot tougher back in the day......that's where the previous era scores quite heavily in my honest opinion......where this era scores is the insane consistency of top players but again that's somewhat understandable......

if somebody in the 90s jokingly expressed a desire to see two career grandslams in a span of 7 years, that would be like "are you fucking kidding me?"......you can just imagine the rest......

Your posts are irrational and poor. I don't need to read them to realize this.

Johnny Groove
11-25-2011, 06:49 PM
Wimbledon I'd have to really disagree. What true clay courter from the 90s actually progressed past the QFs? If I remember correctly, Guga made the Wimbledon QFs once getting an utter joke of a draw until he met Agassi who school him in straight sets. And Guga was a solid fast court player. And we all know have poor Muster was on the grass and he was also a very decent hard court player. Kafelnikov who was an excellent hard court player only made the QF once as well. Moya made the 4th round at the tail end of his career and he was a solid fast court player. Gomez also only made one QF appearance. Bruguera made a 4th round once while Costa made two 2nd rounds.

The only two were Agassi and Courier who had great success at Roland Garros and also had good success on grass, but their cases are pretty much the opposite considering they are not naturally clay courters like many of the players I mentioned prior and their ground games translated well on all the surfaces. Nadal's groundstrokes would prove to be too much of a liability with the 90s grass as and revels on good bounces and time to set up.

I dunno man. I think Nadal with a good draw like in 96 with Rafa in peak form with all the guy's pure tenacity would find a way to win that Wimbledon in 96.

EliSter
11-25-2011, 06:50 PM
it's just pathetic that blind breed can't fathom simple things and blindly go by what they have done in this era......the field in the 90s was vastly spread more evenly, had way more variety and depth......you would never be sure what would happen on a given day......and what about the surfaces? all that makes reaching the semis and finals stages that much more harder......

some of the semis and finals of the 90s may not have matched the current day intense battles from the back but reaching those stages was a lot tougher back in the day......that's where the previous era scores quite heavily in my honest opinion......where this era scores is the insane consistency of top players but again that's somewhat understandable......

if somebody in the 90s jokingly expressed a desire to see two career grandslams in a span of 7 years, that would be like "are you fucking kidding me?"......you can just imagine the rest......

I have to agree with this. Field was much deeper and any player could boom out of nowhere...no way Federer would have anything close to 16 GS.

HKz
11-25-2011, 06:51 PM
I dunno man. I think Nadal with a good draw like in 96 with Rafa in peak form with all the guy's pure tenacity would find a way to win that Wimbledon in 96.

You can be as tenacious as you want, it isn't going to stop the low and uneven bounces of Wimbledon or the big servers which we all know Nadal has a lot of difficult with.

I have to agree with this. Field was much deeper and any player could boom out of nowhere...no way Federer would have anything close to 16 GS.

Show us the deep field. Aside from clay and Roland Garros which had multiple multi-winners (Courier/Bruguera/Kuerten) and a couple strong multi runner ups (Chang/Agassi) it was pretty much Sampras and sometimes Agassi.

Johnny Groove
11-25-2011, 06:53 PM
You can be as tenacious as you want, it isn't going to stop the low and uneven bounces of Wimbledon or the big servers which we all know Nadal has a lot of difficult with.

He'd only have to beat Henman and Krajicek :shrug:

Start da Game
11-25-2011, 06:58 PM
You can be as tenacious as you want, it isn't going to stop the low and uneven bounces of Wimbledon or the big servers which we all know Nadal has a lot of difficult with.

17 year old diaper nadal waved bye bye to mario ancic in wimbledon 2003 and saved federina from second successive embarrassment at the hands of ancic......without nadal's help, federina wouldn't have won his first wimbledon......

HKz
11-25-2011, 06:58 PM
He'd only have to beat Henman and Krajicek :shrug:

Again, I gave you that list of Roland Garros winners of the 90s/earliy 2000s and how they struggled at Wimbledon. Nadal certainly did not have the style of Courier/Agassi who were the only ones to have any success at Wimbledon and Roland Garros together in the 90s. Sure, you can point out players like Borg that had great success at both events, but you would be lying if you say Borg played a Nadal-type style at Wimbledon, because if anything, Borg played a lot like Federer than Nadal during his reign over Wimbledon. Of course, it is arguably Nadal is a totally different class of a player than many of those names in the 90s, but many of them had games that were much suited for faster court surfaces than Nadal yet they still failed to have any success while Nadal has such an unorthodox playing style.

17 year old diaper nadal waved bye bye to mario ancic in wimbledon 2003 and saved federina from second successive embarrassment at the hands of ancic......without nadal's help, federina wouldn't have won his first wimbledon......

You have got to be kidding if you think Ancic would have progressed all the way through and beaten Federer that year.

Holy crap, your posts just keep becoming more piss poor every second. Do you have a life bro? And....do....you....understand....the....point.... of....a....period....?

SetSampras
11-25-2011, 07:00 PM
Clay was extremely deep in the early-mid 90s.

Grass not deep? Pete, Becker, Goran, Andre, Pioline and Kraijcek for a short run among others.Rafter aft the end. Thats more depth then Fed and Nadal for what 3 years with everyone else useless on grass from 06-08. Followed by a weaker grass court player in Djokovic

Start da Game
11-25-2011, 07:01 PM
I have to agree with this. Field was much deeper and any player could boom out of nowhere...no way Federer would have anything close to 16 GS.

edberg and becker, with insane grass skill fought like mads for wimbledon titles......all they ended up was 2 and 3 titles respectively.......

DrJules
11-25-2011, 07:06 PM
Clay was extremely deep in the early-mid 90s.

Grass not deep? Pete, Becker, Goran, Andre, Pioline and Kraijcek for a short run among others.Rafter aft the end. Thats more depth then Fed and Nadal for what 3 years with everyone else useless on grass from 06-08. Followed by a weaker grass court player in Djokovic

Much truth in grass and clay fields having more strength and depth in 90s. In essence the strength and depth is on hard courts in 00s more than any previous era.

DrJules
11-25-2011, 07:09 PM
edberg and becker, with insane grass skill fought like mads for wimbledon titles......all they ended up was 2 and 3 titles respectively.......

Becker's second serve double faults and less than great mobility undid him and Edberg was not the most powerful of servers and players.

SetSampras
11-25-2011, 07:13 PM
You didn't have to cover 3 quarters of the earth like Nadal on grass back then.. If fact it killed your chances winning wimbledon back with defensive play and running all over the place.. The aggressor was about 10 times out of 10 to be the victor there.

Start da Game
11-25-2011, 07:13 PM
Becker's second serve double faults and less than great mobility undid him and Edberg was not the most powerful of servers and players.

still nothing compared to infinite weaknesses of federina......standing upright at the net to knock off "rolex" commercial volleys against grass mugs, useless against serve and volleyers as proved in his late teens and early 20s when the tour still had some fine serve and volleyers......still holding 6 titles......

HKz
11-25-2011, 07:13 PM
Clay was extremely deep in the early-mid 90s.

Grass not deep? Pete, Becker, Goran, Andre, Pioline and Kraijcek for a short run among others.Rafter aft the end. Thats more depth then Fed and Nadal for what 3 years with everyone else useless on grass from 06-08. Followed by a weaker grass court player in Djokovic

That is a very hypocritical post. So Federer wins every thing that means the field is NOT deep, which is what you constantly argue, yet you bring up 90s grass/Wimbledon which was the least variable slam in terms of winners in the 90s and you turn the equation around to claim that the field WAS deep even though it is pretty much the same shit as Federer's case? What kind of crap is that? Yes clay was arguably deep, but if you really claim grass is, then you may as well ultimately claim Federer's field was ultimately deep too.

edberg and becker, with insane grass skill fought like mads for wimbledon titles......all they ended up was 2 and 3 titles respectively.......

Ya, learn dates bro. End of 80s = 90s amirite?

still nothing compared to infinite weaknesses of federina......standing upright at the net to knock off "rolex" commercial volleys against grass mugs, useless against serve and volleyers as proved in his late teens and early 20s when the tour still had some fine serve and volleyers......still holding 6 titles......

How is this fool so bitter? Did this guy get told he was a shit player by Nick Bollettieri for his "unconventional Rafa mimic style" so forever he tries to undermine players with good technique, IE Federer?

SetSampras
11-25-2011, 07:18 PM
No.. The field was NOT deep at all regardless of Fed dominating.. I don't think you will find many who say otherwise. 2006 a young buck Nadal only in his 5th grasscourt tournament EVER reaches the finals and where he was clearly learning on grass. That says alot. From 07-08 no one still did anything to stop to the Fedal monopoly on grass. A weak grasscourt player like Djokovic winning Wimbledon in not the most convincing of fashions all throughout the tournament. If the grass field WAS strong, then there should have been quite a few players to manage a wimbledon title before Djokovic.

Grass has been as dead as its ever been from 2002-present in terms of viable good-great grass court players. Next year marks the 10th anniversary of "Dead grass court tennis"

Start da Game
11-25-2011, 07:22 PM
That is a very hypocritical post. So Federer wins every thing that means the field is NOT deep, which is what you constantly argue, yet you bring up 90s grass/Wimbledon which was the least variable slam in terms of winners in the 90s and you turn the equation around to claim that the field WAS deep even though it is pretty much the same shit as Federer's case? What kind of crap is that? Yes clay was arguably deep, but if you really claim grass is, then you may as well ultimately claim Federer's field was ultimately deep too.



Ya, learn dates bro. End of 80s = 90s amirite?



How is this fool so bitter? Did this guy get told he was a shit player by Nick Bollettieri for his "unconventional Rafa mimic style" so forever he tries to undermine players with good technique, IE Federer?

stop quoting my posts, tool.....creeping out of the hole realizing that your god looks good to eat the leftover in the dinner plates of nadal and djokovic, i don't think you deserve my attention anymore......

you have exceeded the sdg attention limit for the day......try again tomorrow......

Johnny Groove
11-25-2011, 07:25 PM
Much truth in grass and clay fields having more strength and depth in 90s. In essence the strength and depth is on hard courts in 00s more than any previous era.

This is true.

Again, I gave you that list of Roland Garros winners of the 90s/earliy 2000s and how they struggled at Wimbledon. Nadal certainly did not have the style of Courier/Agassi who were the only ones to have any success at Wimbledon and Roland Garros together in the 90s. Sure, you can point out players like Borg that had great success at both events, but you would be lying if you say Borg played a Nadal-type style at Wimbledon, because if anything, Borg played a lot like Federer than Nadal during his reign over Wimbledon. Of course, it is arguably Nadal is a totally different class of a player than many of those names in the 90s, but many of them had games that were much suited for faster court surfaces than Nadal yet they still failed to have any success while Nadal has such an unorthodox playing style.

None of those guys were anywhere near as successful off of clay as Nadal is. Nadal has 4 non-clay slams. None of those guys had even one, iirc. I know Nadal would not do well at Wimbledon in the 90's, but 1 title would be justice.

You didn't have to cover 3 quarters of the earth like Nadal on grass back then.. If fact it killed your chances winning wimbledon back with defensive play and running all over the place.. The aggressor was about 10 times out of 10 to be the victor there.

Nadal on grass from 06-08 came to the net more than any other player. Homeboy can and has adjusted his game to grass. Receiving serve much closer, serving better, volleying.

DrJules
11-25-2011, 07:33 PM
still nothing compared to infinite weaknesses of federina......standing upright at the net to knock off "rolex" commercial volleys against grass mugs, useless against serve and volleyers as proved in his late teens and early 20s when the tour still had some fine serve and volleyers......still holding 6 titles......

Obviously missed the Federer vs Sampras 2001 Wimbledon match which proves your statement to be incorrect.

juan27
11-25-2011, 08:09 PM
poor start da game , his mind are lose because his gladiator was humilliated by nole this year and he was ultra-owned by federer.

this man like other nadull`tards are obsessed with federer, in his mind him and all nadull`tard know that nadal always be the shadow of the great federer`s legacy and he can`t aceept this fact

fmolinari2005
11-25-2011, 08:57 PM
Clay was extremely deep in the early-mid 90s.

Grass not deep? Pete, Becker, Goran, Andre, Pioline and Kraijcek for a short run among others.Rafter aft the end. Thats more depth then Fed and Nadal for what 3 years with everyone else useless on grass from 06-08. Followed by a weaker grass court player in Djokovic

Really?!

Pete: sure, up to this moment he is the greatest grass courter ever. I will give you that.

Becker: mid 90's he wasn't already THE Boris Becker

Goran: huge head case.

Pioline: seriously?!!!!!!!!

Andre: great player. Won his maiden Wimbledon title against Goran ... Nadal is a better grass courter than Andre for sure.

Rafter: good player- still, not the toughest competitor out there. Hewitt on grass could do more damage.

I am not saying, at all, that it was a weak era. But you can't say it was exactly the strongest era ever as most Samprastards like to talk about. Probably the strongest era on grass was around late 70's to late 80's

This shit that Fed would struggle to win GS titles against S&Vers always comes up when Roger reaches his great form (it was the main song sang by Samprastards back in 05-07). But it was proven, first by Nadal and then Cañas, that to beat Federer the main key is to be a human wall and exploit his backhand inconsistency. Fed's backand is a liability when he needs to hit it over and over. However, he is quite able to hit great backhand passing shots, steady chip returns and winners off that wing.

Haelfix
11-25-2011, 10:59 PM
Pioline, Korda, Courier, Agassi, Goran, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Stitch, Martin really have almost no hope against Fed on grass, even a young Fed beats most of them trivially. His 2003 level was already significantly higher than any tennis they ever played, and as every1 knows, he is ridiculously consistent.

The only real competition would be Becker in the early years, Rafter in the later part and of course Pete. Hewitt would be a problem as well in 02. Either way he still ends up with something like 4.

On hards, I don't see anyone beating him at the AO other than Agassi, who is AWOL most of the decade, so you are looking at potentially adding several championships there, easily blanking Korda, Courier and Yevgeny. I also very much don't like Pete's chances either.

The USO would be more competitive, but I still give him 5 if you go into the 2ks.

Basically the fundamental reason Fed always comes out well in these thought experiments, is the fact that he pretty much beats every1 he is supposed to beat nearly always. Past champions often lose to randoms, not so with Fed. So I mean even if he only splits wins with Pete, Andre and Guga, he clears out everything else and still ends up with ridiculous totals.

Singularity
11-25-2011, 11:39 PM
17 year old diaper nadal waved bye bye to mario ancic in wimbledon 2003 and saved federina from second successive embarrassment at the hands of ancic......without nadal's help, federina wouldn't have won his first wimbledon......
Ancic won one set in his next 6 meetings with Federer.

barbadosan
11-26-2011, 02:06 AM
Ancic won one set in his next 6 meetings with Federer.

how easily you pwned SdG :D

SetSampras
11-26-2011, 02:22 AM
Pioline, Korda, Courier, Agassi, Goran, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Stitch, Martin really have almost no hope against Fed on grass, even a young Fed beats most of them trivially. His 2003 level was already significantly higher than any tennis they ever played, and as every1 knows, he is ridiculously consistent.

The only real competition would be Becker in the early years, Rafter in the later part and of course Pete. Hewitt would be a problem as well in 02. Either way he still ends up with something like 4.

On hards, I don't see anyone beating him at the AO other than Agassi, who is AWOL most of the decade, so you are looking at potentially adding several championships there, easily blanking Korda, Courier and Yevgeny. I also very much don't like Pete's chances either.

The USO would be more competitive, but I still give him 5 if you go into the 2ks.

Basically the fundamental reason Fed always comes out well in these thought experiments, is the fact that he pretty much beats every1 he is supposed to beat nearly always. Past champions often lose to randoms, not so with Fed. So I mean even if he only splits wins with Pete, Andre and Guga, he clears out everything else and still ends up with ridiculous totals.


If we go into the early 00's by that time Fed and Pete would both be in a clear decline whos levels dip.

I doubt I would give Fed 5 going into the USO in the early 00s. By 2000 You still have Pete at the USO in.. And don't forget Safin who was going like a house of fire there.. By 2001, you got a draw full riddled with dangerous threats (Hewitt at or near his peak, better then later Hewitt, Agassi playing an all time high level in 01, Sampras playing awesome, Rafter, the defending champ Safin) no guarantee at all Fed get the 01 USO.

We haven't got into the 2012 season to reasonably guesstimate where Fed falls in 2002 against Hewitt, Pete or Andre there.

Andre had a sudden career emergence by 1999 and was much more fresh then Pete by the early 00s who was on top that all whole decade. Fed may face a similiar decline to that.. Since Fed would be on top throughout the 90s. So who knows what he grabs in the early 00s really declining and getting older

atennisfan
11-26-2011, 03:06 AM
One thing for sure if Fed plays in the 90s:
He would have held the #1 spot for record weeks, because he's the player with best all courts skills/talents.

And Sampras would never have held #1 if Fed played in the era.

silverarrows
11-26-2011, 05:37 AM
Pioline, Korda, Courier, Agassi, Goran, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Stitch, Martin. I've seen all them played during the 90's and all I can tell you guys is all of them has no chance against peak Fed on grass. That's my opinion.

rocketassist
11-26-2011, 06:25 AM
90s grass field was very strong. In fact grass was quite strong till about 2007. Fed's debut Wimbledon win had Agassi (former champ), Hewitt (defending champ), Roddick (won Queens), Philippoussis, Schalken, Henman, Grosjean, actual grass guys. After 2007 Hewitt, Baghdatis tailed off, Henman had long gone, Ancic never recovered from mono, Gasquet never reached his 2007 Wimbledon form, and you simply had the top 4 pissing it with the odd burst such as Tsonga or Berdych.

Djokovic and Nadal contesting a Wimbledon final was the confirmation that grass tennis and its specialists were dead and buried, never to return.

rocketassist
11-26-2011, 06:30 AM
Pioline, Korda, Courier, Agassi, Goran, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Stitch, Martin. I've seen all them played during the 90's and all I can tell you guys is all of them has no chance against peak Fed on grass. That's my opinion.

we don't know about Fed on 90s grass in the cases of Krajicek and Ivanisevic cause they'd serve-bomb their way to tie breaks quite often.

Stich-Federer woulda been a spectacle of finesse.

Haelfix
11-26-2011, 06:52 AM
Krajicec doesn't have the game or mobility to beat Federer. The bombs he was serving are actually relatively meak by today's standards, Isner for instance is much more dangerous as far as service games go. He might take a set to a tiebreak but he isn't going to win it either.

Goran otoh did have the talent and game to take some sets of Fed. However he was a head case, and a few temper tantrums, would more or less be the end of him.

Prime fed was a really horrible matchup for aggressive baseliners, big servers and serve and volleyers. His return neutralized their first strike capabilities, gave them a lot of shoestring volleys and the flat hitting went right into his strike zone. By 2003 Henman et al struggled to win simple points off their serve, much less sets.

I'm not saying it was impossible, but you probably would have needed to be a great athlete in addition to the required touch and power. So eg only Pete and Rafter really had that type of physique. Boris when he was younger as well.

Shinoj
11-26-2011, 10:34 AM
Prime early 90s Edberg would have given solid comptetiton. He is a Volleyer GOAT, you have to remember that. Michael Stich had the game,and on a given if he could have pulled it all together he would have given Federer a big run.

Boris Becker could have. Jim Courier definitely could have.

And Krajicek had the game, apart from the serve to trouble Federer. His Forehands Backhand Volleyeing everything was smooth when he was really on. Fed could have lost to Krajicek.

Kafelnikov was pretty formidable on Clay and if he was in the mood then Fed could have lost an Odd match.

Patrick Rafter was a Tiger on the court, if he had the ability of 80 he would deliver 160 on the court such was his tenaciousness. Rafter could have defeated Federer.

Kuerton could have defeated him on Clay.

Start da Game
11-26-2011, 10:45 AM
Ancic won one set in his next 6 meetings with Federer.

irrelevant......ancic would still have played the same slamless mentally fragile clown in that 2003 wimbledon, not this fake media build personality he did from 2005 onwards......

Singularity
11-26-2011, 11:42 AM
It's funny. You can't actually admit that Federer peaked after 2002, so you have to pretend that Ancic was intimidated by Federer's "media image" in all the matches he lost to him. When presented with actual evidence, make something up.

Equally Federer was as mentally strong in 2002, as he was in 2003 or any other year. That's why he lost in straight sets to Hicham Arazi in the first round of the 2002 FO. Good job Federer evaded Arazi in subsequent years or he'd have been blown off the court, right?

fsoica
11-26-2011, 12:41 PM
irrelevant......ancic would still have played the same slamless mentally fragile clown in that 2003 wimbledon, not this fake media build personality he did from 2005 onwards......

I thought that there is some positive human emotion residue in that skull o'yours, but I can see now that I was terribly wrong...the Force, the dark side of it, is growing stronger in you with every match Federer is winning. Poor christian soul, let it all go for your own sake ...take a vacation, stop watching tennis and get back to the basics...life is not about hating Federer, mate...

tripwires
11-26-2011, 12:55 PM
Any opinion put forth by Start da Game, who famously theorised that the outcome of the Wimbledon final was decided on the coin toss, should instantly be disregarded. ;) At the most his posts should be treated as nothing but sheer, cheap entertainment.

sexybeast
11-26-2011, 01:00 PM
Start da game ruined what was an interesting and fun thread. Too bad, most people were using reason. Even Setsampras who I might have wrongly accused of beeing a Samprastard, seems like he is more of a Sampras fan, which is great because this forum needs some fans of the old legends so they are not forgotten in ongoing discussions.

tests
11-26-2011, 03:14 PM
Prime early 90s Edberg would have given solid comptetiton. He is a Volleyer GOAT, you have to remember that. Michael Stich had the game,and on a given if he could have pulled it all together he would have given Federer a big run.

Boris Becker could have. Jim Courier definitely could have.

And Krajicek had the game, apart from the serve to trouble Federer. His Forehands Backhand Volleyeing everything was smooth when he was really on. Fed could have lost to Krajicek.

Kafelnikov was pretty formidable on Clay and if he was in the mood then Fed could have lost an Odd match.

Patrick Rafter was a Tiger on the court, if he had the ability of 80 he would deliver 160 on the court such was his tenaciousness. Rafter could have defeated Federer.

Kuerton could have defeated him on Clay.

this is false.

Courier won't beat fed in a slam... krajicek won't either... rafter more often than not won't either...

i could see kuerten on clay and maybe kafelnikov

sexybeast
11-26-2011, 03:17 PM
this is false.

Courier won't beat fed in a slam... krajicek won't either... rafter more often than not won't either...

i could see kuerten on clay and maybe kafelnikov

Kafelnikov would never beat Federer in a slam, he couldnt beat any top players in slams except Sampras on clay and an injured Kuerten on hardcourt.

Krajicek could beat Federer on grass when he was on fire, Rafter I think could do it aswell.

Kuerten on clay would be favorite against Federer everytime they played, but not own him like Nadal does. Bruguera on clay would probably be 50-50 in 93-95, Muster would be prey for Federer and Courier would maybe have his chanses on slow hardocurt but on clay Federer would easily beat him.

Shinoj
11-26-2011, 03:40 PM
Its all speculation and what makes the MTFer so strong of their conviction that A would beat Federer or Federer would beat A. At the end of the day it is just what YOU think could have beaten Federer or not. And there is no scope of arguing over it whatsoever.

atennisfan
11-26-2011, 04:05 PM
Many players in the 90s could trouble Fed.

But if I were to bet, Fed would still have finished end year as #1 for many years if he'd played in the 90s.

Sophocles
11-26-2011, 04:10 PM
I dunno man. I think Nadal with a good draw like in 96 with Rafa in peak form with all the guy's pure tenacity would find a way to win that Wimbledon in 96.

Do you really see Nadal beating Krajicek in '96?

Start da Game
11-26-2011, 04:13 PM
I thought that there is some positive human emotion residue in that skull o'yours, but I can see now that I was terribly wrong...the Force, the dark side of it, is growing stronger in you with every match Federer is winning. Poor christian soul, let it all go for your own sake ...take a vacation, stop watching tennis and get back to the basics...life is not about hating Federer, mate...

simply gtfo.....i will state my opinions even if it's killing you inside and destroying your mental peace.....it's only a sport and the opinions are only about players, not about you or your relations......no need to get down to personal attacks you moron......

nadal is called a pig openly and nobody says a word against it......i am not even 20% as harsh as you morons......so stop acting like a sage and stop puking insults......

DDrago2
11-26-2011, 04:14 PM
Federer would win all

HKz
11-26-2011, 04:48 PM
simply gtfo.....i will state my opinions even if it's killing you inside and destroying your mental peace.....it's only a sport and the opinions are only about players, not about you or your relations......no need to get down to personal attacks you moron......

nadal is called a pig openly and nobody says a word against it......i am not even 20% as harsh as you morons......so stop acting like a sage and stop puking insults......

Most hypocritical post of the year by far. Congrats tard da fail.

tests
11-26-2011, 05:32 PM
Kafelnikov would never beat Federer in a slam, he couldnt beat any top players in slams except Sampras on clay and an injured Kuerten on hardcourt.

Krajicek could beat Federer on grass when he was on fire, Rafter I think could do it aswell.

Kuerten on clay would be favorite against Federer everytime they played, but not own him like Nadal does. Bruguera on clay would probably be 50-50 in 93-95, Muster would be prey for Federer and Courier would maybe have his chanses on slow hardocurt but on clay Federer would easily beat him.

however, this is all pure speculation. For all we know, federer might have won 4-5 roland garros in the 90s. What i have learned from federer is that other than rafael nadal, he seems to be able to figure out how to beat everyone eventually. I bet he would do the same with guga and beat him in the FO as well.

I can't see krajicek beating fed on grass, but i could see rafter doing it. Fed would still win 4-5 in a row though

DrJules
11-26-2011, 05:53 PM
Although late in the career of Kracijek, but early in the career of Federer they played 2 matches on grass and indoors and Federer won both:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=K214

Video below is from their indoors match:

JUnpN1Vh0WA

Ivanisevic also played and lost 2 matches against Federer:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=I034

Also some video below:


SgDncDs2h5o

Both would have struggled to break the Federer serve and he would have put too many returns in play to exploit their occasional fagility on the volley as they expected their serve to avoid the need to volley.

juan27
11-26-2011, 06:12 PM
Although late in the career of Kracijek, but early in the career of Federer they played 2 matches on grass and indoors and Federer won both:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=K214

Video below is from their indoors match:

JUnpN1Vh0WA

Ivanisevic also played and lost 2 matches against Federer:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=I034

Also some video below:


SgDncDs2h5o

Both would have struggled to break the Federer serve and he would have put too many returns in play to exploit their occasional fagility on the volley as they expected their serve to avoid the need to volley.

good post.

federer is a goat player in hard courts.

the tard or fanatics never can learn that the goats can win in any era.

sexybeast
11-26-2011, 08:06 PM
Although late in the career of Kracijek, but early in the career of Federer they played 2 matches on grass and indoors and Federer won both:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=K214

Video below is from their indoors match:

JUnpN1Vh0WA

Ivanisevic also played and lost 2 matches against Federer:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=I034

Also some video below:


SgDncDs2h5o

Both would have struggled to break the Federer serve and he would have put too many returns in play to exploit their occasional fagility on the volley as they expected their serve to avoid the need to volley.

Yeah, I sometimes forget what an amazing first serve returner Federer was in his youth and his passing shots were out of this world, he would definetly stop the big serve domination in the 90s.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
11-26-2011, 09:24 PM
fed is the only current player who would be in the top 20 if the 90s were here again

nole winning wimbledon LOL

nadal winning the us open LOL

andy murray......... LOL

federer would have maybe 5-12 slams in the 90s
but he would also stop sampras alot

i think if federer and sampras cancelled each other out- agassi would benefit- because he (in his prime) would beat both at the AO

paseo
11-26-2011, 10:24 PM
Fed is lucky that he was already playing when S&V was still alive. I think it kind of help him develop that great 1st serve return.

On a side note, seeing clips of Fed paying against Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Sampras, etc. really does remind me that Fed is old and already playing tennis for a long time.

sexybeast
11-26-2011, 11:20 PM
fed is the only current player who would be in the top 20 if the 90s were here again

nole winning wimbledon LOL

nadal winning the us open LOL

andy murray......... LOL

federer would have maybe 5-12 slams in the 90s
but he would also stop sampras alot

i think if federer and sampras cancelled each other out- agassi would benefit- because he (in his prime) would beat both at the AO

:lol: Agassi was in one AO final in the 90s and in the only other SF appearance in 96 he was stopped by fucking Michael Chang. I doubt he would be guarding the AO trophy from ending in Federer's hands much more than Nadal has been doing in the 00s.

It surprises me people think top players back then were consistently in every slam final like Federer is in this era, players in the 90s including Sampras could lose at any given day in most tournament. Only Sampras in Wimbledon reminded of Federer in the 00s.

Shinoj
11-27-2011, 02:59 AM
krajicek was a mercurial player. He doesnt bring his A game on a daily basis but when he brings it he blows the opponent off the court. When Federer might have beaten Krajicek he would not be at his best.

I am predicting 5-4 to Krajicek considering he had a 6-4 against Sampras and Sampras and Federer are in same Mould.:wavey:

FedvsNole
11-27-2011, 03:18 AM
krajicek was a mercurial player. He doesnt bring his A game on a daily basis but when he brings it he blows the opponent off the court. When Federer might have beaten Krajicek he would not be at his best.

I am predicting 5-4 to Krajicek considering he had a 6-4 against Sampras and Sampras and Federer are in same Mould.:wavey:

Ummm noo. Federer was one of the best first serve returners EVER in tennis. It would be more like 5-1 or 6-0 fed. People fail to realize that federer had this type of return which is why no big hitting player ever bothered fed in his prime because he got a ton of their first serves back and it was almost impossible to hit fed off the court in his prime b/c of his speed and running forehand. Even with fed's return game at maybe 50% of what it was he's still near the top of the game which shows how damn great he was.

Action Jackson
11-27-2011, 03:49 AM
Fed is fine when it comes to returning massive serves.

tests
11-27-2011, 04:26 AM
fed is the only current player who would be in the top 20 if the 90s were here again

nole winning wimbledon LOL

nadal winning the us open LOL

andy murray......... LOL

federer would have maybe 5-12 slams in the 90s
but he would also stop sampras alot

i think if federer and sampras cancelled each other out- agassi would benefit- because he (in his prime) would beat both at the AO

a 16 grand slam champion would only have 5 SLAMS in the 90s? lOL

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
11-27-2011, 05:01 AM
5-12 slams

big margin for achieving or not achieving

depends on how he'd matchup to some guys

*shrugs*
but fed's the GOAt no matter what- he didnt need 16 slams to prove that


im convinced now more than ever that roger federer is the only guy that ticks all the boxes in the goat argument

laver was too short
pete had his physical condition that took away stamina
andre was awol half his career
rafa cant play on carpets and is much weaker indoors
borg couldnt get it done in NY
mac's form vanished after 84
lendl lost too many finals
becker never really fulfilled his potential considering how many wimby finals he lost
edberg had flashes of brilliance but also his game just wasnt multi dimensional
muster was incredible for a couple of years but when he adjusted for hard courts his game vanished
guga didnt do enough
don budge didnt dominate for long enough
bill telden lost too many matches
rosewall was far too short
poncho gonzales.............hmm- he ticks all the boxes as far as im concerned

etc etc

SetSampras
11-27-2011, 05:04 AM
Laver too short? No Pancho Gonzales? No Bill Tilden? No Don Budge? No Ken Rosewall? There are other GOAT candidates.. Many you can argue just as if not MORE talented then Roger and overrall more achieved then Roger for their respective eras

Roger is a GOAT candidate but there are MANY GOAT candidates in tennis for their respective eras. Just because we didn't experience their careers first hand doesn't mean they didn't happen.

You can really only group GOAT's by tiers really. You have top tier, second tier and so on..

tripwires
11-27-2011, 05:14 AM
Laver too short? No Pancho Gonzales? No Bill Tilden? No Don Budge? No Ken Rosewall? There are other GOAT candidates.. Many you can argue just as if not MORE talented then Roger and overrall more achieved then Roger for their respective eras

Roger is a GOAT candidate but there are MANY GOAT candidates in tennis for their respective eras. Just because we didn't experience their careers first hand doesn't mean they didn't happen.

You can really only group GOAT's by tiers really. You have top tier, second tier and so on..

Nice to see someone with knowledge of and appreciation for tennis history. :)

Haelfix
11-27-2011, 05:18 AM
krajicek was a mercurial player. He doesnt bring his A game on a daily basis but when he brings it he blows the opponent off the court. When Federer might have beaten Krajicek he would not be at his best.

I am predicting 5-4 to Krajicek considering he had a 6-4 against Sampras and Sampras and Federer are in same Mould.:wavey:

Krajicek would never beat Federer in a slam format. He's too stiff, lacks speed and it's a real bad matchup overall. He'd be much better suited against Rafa, who would give him more time to develop.

If you want to s/v against Federer it is more or less a requirement that the player has great speed and explosiveness. You have to get there before his Ros gets too low. You also have to be able to gamble and jump passing shot lanes on a dime.

Rafter, Sampras, young Becker, young Henman and maybe a non injured Stich are the only ones who fit that category. And Stich, Becker and Tim probably don't have the sustained game and mental to win in a slam format.

You see it already in the youtubes of their matches. Of course they are old and Fed was young, but you can see the matchup issue every time they serve. Likewise when Pat beat him, you could see that his athleticism was getting to Rogers head.

Shinoj
11-27-2011, 05:28 AM
Krajicek would never beat Federer in a slam format. He's too stiff, lacks speed and it's a real bad matchup overall. He'd be much better suited against Rafa, who would give him more time to develop.

If you want to s/v against Federer it is more or less a requirement that the player has great speed and explosiveness. You have to get there before his Ros gets too low. You also have to be able to gamble and jump passing shot lanes on a dime.

Rafter, Sampras, young Becker, young Henman and maybe a non injured Stich are the only ones who fit that category. And Stich, Becker and Tim probably don't have the sustained game and mental to win in a slam format.

You see it already in the youtubes of their matches. Of course they are old and Fed was young, but you can see the matchup issue every time they serve. Likewise when Pat beat him, you could see that his athleticism was getting to Rogers head.


Nobody knows about these match ups untill it is played consistently.All those things,He is too stiff,lacks speed can also be said for Safin and He had a decent record against Federer.

And Stich and Becker have Grand Slams. So apparently they do have the Sustained Game and mental to win.


Actually come to think of it, somebody like Thomas Muster would have been a bad match up for Federer. Slow,Topspin Moonballs to his backhand,and a left hander. Ring a bell

SetSampras
11-27-2011, 05:31 AM
96 Kraijcek was a dang machine there at wimbledon.. Big serving, big hitting, big attack. Very Scary guy to play when he was playing like that. He was playing like Goran of 2001 at wimbledon or like Muster was playing in 95 at RG. Just one of those scary dominant 2 week performances where everything clicks. Fed would obviously be a fav but I don't know how many people here saw wimbledon 1996 for those 2 weeks, not many guys reached the level Richard reached during that time period. Ask pete and some others just how good Rich was during those few weeks

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
11-27-2011, 05:34 AM
Actually come to think of it, somebody like Thomas Muster would have been a bad match up for Federer. Slow,Topspin Moonballs to his backhand,and a left hander. Ring a bell

ive mentioned that one before

i think the counter argument was- muster sucked against S&V- his passing shot was sh!t

nadal has an awesome passing shot

federer would be able to adjust his game against muster more so than he has against nadal

of course- if fed and nadal played on 90s surfaces- fed probably wouldnt have the H2H he has- then again- maybe, nadal wouldnt ever meet federer in the 90s except on clay

Shinoj
11-27-2011, 05:40 AM
ive mentioned that one before

i think the counter argument was- muster sucked against S&V- his passing shot was sh!t

nadal has an awesome passing shot

federer would be able to adjust his game against muster more so than he has against nadal

of course- if fed and nadal played on 90s surfaces- fed probably wouldnt have the H2H he has- then again- maybe, nadal wouldnt ever meet federer in the 90s except on clay


BTW how much does Federer Serve and volley these days? He doesn't do it quite often. And i was referring to Clay .

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
11-27-2011, 06:00 AM
BTW how much does Federer Serve and volley these days? He doesn't do it quite often. And i was referring to Clay .

even on clay he couldnt handle S&V

fed's always had S&V in him, its the courts that dont allow that style now

if we are talking peak fed, then yes- he could S&V as good as anyone if he practised

Shinoj
11-27-2011, 09:10 AM
even on clay he couldnt handle S&V

fed's always had S&V in him, its the courts that dont allow that style now

if we are talking peak fed, then yes- he could S&V as good as anyone if he practised


if Federer doesnt S&V on the slower courts now what will make him S&V in the slower Clay courts of the 90s?

sexybeast
11-27-2011, 01:40 PM
if Federer doesnt S&V on the slower courts now what will make him S&V in the slower Clay courts of the 90s?

Raquet technology made it diffucult for opponents to make passing shots, so the idea that Federer could go to the net more often in slow courts in the 90s is not completely wrong. Serve and volleyers like Ivanisevic, Krajicek and Becker all had som success on ultra slow claycourts like Monte Carlo and Hamburg going to several finals. Edberg was in RG final, Becker, Krajicek and Rafter all got to SF in RG. It wasnt even that much slower than it is today, just raquet technology was not as advanced.

Shinoj
11-27-2011, 01:54 PM
Raquet technology made it diffucult for opponents to make passing shots, so the idea that Federer could go to the net more often in slow courts in the 90s is not completely wrong. Serve and volleyers like Ivanisevic, Krajicek and Becker all had som success on ultra slow claycourts like Monte Carlo and Hamburg going to several finals. Edberg was in RG final, Becker, Krajicek and Rafter all got to SF in RG. It wasnt even that much slower than it is today, just raquet technology was not as advanced.


Well the slowness of the court would compensate for the Racket Technology. If the courts are slow its a high risk strategy of going to the nets often. Thats the very reason likes of Muster,Bruguera could dominate the clay courts once they found out the way to work it.

Once Burguera came on the scene it in some sort opened the way to the Clay Courters as a prototype of playing in the Clay courts.

Monte Carlo and hamburg were after all not Grand Slam. It really depends upon on who is participating and who is not.

And Edberg was a very different example which you chose.

There were two ways of being successful in the Slow Clay Courts.
Either you stay back and slug it out. hitting Moon balls through out and so on Or you just go with your natural game all out.

Thats the reason Edberg had some success in RG. He was a Top Top player and he was very confident about his S&V game something which Federer is not.

fran70
11-27-2011, 07:03 PM
Olderer would have had a positive W/L % against everyone in the 90's because it was a mug era.

How can you dare to call the 90ties a mug era? Definitely I can see you don't have an idea of what you are talking about and what meant to play in a slow clay court or a fast grass one, even a sintetic indoor.

I follow tennis since the late 70ties when I fell in love with tennis, started to play it and follow the tour and believe me that tennis is much easier now than it was in the 70ties, 80ties and 90ties. On those years Federer wouldn't had won the French Open, or for instance Nadal and Djokovic in Wimbledon.

1998, 2010 and 2011 were the weakest years I'd seen in tennis since I follow it.