If we were to switch places b/w roger and pete, and send roger to the era of lions as [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

If we were to switch places b/w roger and pete, and send roger to the era of lions as

TheSwissMaster
05-31-2008, 10:55 AM
they (fedhaters) describe it and pete to the era of mouse,

would that have made any difference to the greatness of both player?
ofcourse fed haters do think that fed has taken adv of weak era and had he be been born in era of lions he wouldve been nothing.

i was just wondering that if pete was born in this era, would he been as dominant as he was in 90s era. his main game was serve and volley and watching serve and volley almost nonexistent in this era bcz of rapid changes in the mens tennis helped by slowness of surfaces and
use of heavier larger balls, i doubt he wouldve won as many slams as he won in his era bcz his S&v game wouldnt be as effective. nadal reaching two finals is another prove that aggressive tennis these days isnt a guarantee to the wimb title. i would give him 10 to 12 slams in this era or he might have ended with similar no of slams (14) but considering some calling it a weak era, 14 slams will be quite less.

whereas considering roger born in that era, i think roger wouldve been more dominant. if u go back when roger started his career, he started it with S&v. if u watch his clash with pete in wimb, u will see he beat him with his S&v game which showed he was no ordinary S&V player and even these days when he comes to S&V he is great, ofcourse not as as good as pete was. even pete said after that wimb clash about his S&v that it was like looking in the mirror.


there is a thing called specialization, the more u do a particular thing, the more u get expert in it and im sure the more roger had played s&v game the more he would have had become genius in this dept like pete but the changing game of mens tennis didnt allow him to use it regularly.

so my point is if he was born in pete's era, he wouldve been as good a S&V'er or atleast close to what pete was bcz he wouldve regularly played this style of game in that era and hence become as good. so he still wouldve had at least 12 slams and i have no doubt that he wouldve had couple of RG titles.

The main thing being that even if he was born in the era of lions as they describe it, he still would've dominated bcz he had the game to do it whereas im not sure pete had the game outside S&V to dominate on slower courts the way he did in the era
of faster courts, he might have bcz he was genius too, but i can say more confidently about roger than pete.

and so there is no need to diminish rogers accomplishments by linking it with weak era theories

Chiseller
05-31-2008, 11:33 AM
http://www.acapela-group.com/Greetings/fish-1-208-b8f8e03c2b2e4

Kolya
05-31-2008, 11:41 AM
Federer wouldn't dominate.

He wouldn't be as successful on clay as there will be more clay court specialists - Bruguera, Berasategui, Medvedev, Muster, Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Costa, Corretja and Courier would have beaten Federer on clay.

Federer playing on real fast grass and indoor courts would have lost to guys like Stich, Becker, Edberg, Ivanisevic for sure.

He would win GS's for sure but there would be greater chances for him to lose before the finals.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
05-31-2008, 11:43 AM
Can't we just let this subject die? First, you cannot properly compare eras. Second, people just use this as a way of bashing players they don't like. Third, it is extremely boring.

stebs
05-31-2008, 11:47 AM
Been discussed many times and long posts have been written explaining why it is logically invalid to compare 'eras' and there is more than one reason. Use the search function if you want to find them.

marcRD
05-31-2008, 12:22 PM
Federer wouldn't dominate.

He wouldn't be as successful on clay as there will be more clay court specialists - Bruguera, Berasategui, Medvedev, Muster, Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Costa, Corretja and Courier would have beaten Federer on clay.


One thing which surprises me when I see lists like that and I have seen many here trying to point out how weak the current clay field is, Moya is never included. I ask to myself why is that? Moya is better than most players on your list, his results on clay are better than Kafelnikovs, Berasategui, Medvedev, Costa and deffinetly Corretja.

I also wonder why Federer cant beat Muster, Costa, Courier and Bruguera in Roland Garros when Sampras who is a far inferior clay player than Federer defeated all of them in RG when they were all around their prime?

miura
05-31-2008, 12:35 PM
I'm positive Federer would have still dominated on most of the fast surfaces. It would have been a harder field in the clay season but he could still get into final if not win them. We all saw the 4R Federer - Sampras at Wimbledon 2001. Maybe Sampras was a little off his peak but he hadn't decline so much it would have mattered because Federer won back then when his game was not fully developed.

Kolya
05-31-2008, 12:48 PM
One thing which surprises me when I see lists like that and I have seen many here trying to point out how weak the current clay field is, Moya is never included. I ask to myself why is that? Moya is better than most players on your list, his results on clay are better than Kafelnikovs, Berasategui, Medvedev, Costa and deffinetly Corretja.

I also wonder why Federer cant beat Muster, Costa, Courier and Bruguera in Roland Garros when Sampras who is a far inferior clay player than Federer defeated all of them in RG when they were all around their prime?

I don't know I've never liked Moya but he is good.

I never said Federer couldn't beat the guys I mentioned but there would be a greater chance of him losing in a clay event to one of them.

He wouldn't be making the finals so easily like now IMO.

marcRD
05-31-2008, 12:51 PM
I don't know I've never liked Moya but he is good.

I never said Federer couldn't beat the guys I mentioned but there would be a greater chance of him losing in a clay event to one of them.

He wouldn't be making the finals so easily like now IMO.

Maybe not, but neither would he be beaten in finals as easy as now.

Kolya
05-31-2008, 12:54 PM
Maybe not, but neither would he be beaten in finals as easy as now.

Maybe... well its all hypothetical...

Purple Rainbow
05-31-2008, 01:00 PM
Had Federer played 10 yers earlier, he would have completed the Grand Slam and Moya, Kafelnikov, Muster and Rios wouldn't have reached #1.

Vida
05-31-2008, 01:08 PM
and so there is no need to diminish rogers accomplishments by linking it with weak era theories

I agree. After all, it is not his fault that he is head and shoulders above the rest of the filed. No one gave him anything he didn't take by himself.

But, the true measure of greatness (I believe) lays in ability to battle the adversities and given obstacles, not in talent. In that sense, number of titles and weeks at the top only indicate 'size' of ones accomplishments, but not engrave it.

So saying that Fed would dominate Pete's era, although not neccessary false, it is still too far feched and inconclusive as it is to say that Fed got a mega-walkover to his 12 GS's and I dunno how many weeks at no 1.

To conlclude: IMO, although Fed is near the goatness there are many more things to prove (at least to me) and many more buckets of sweat to be filled. And the fact that Fed's game is - arguably - the best, it only ADDS to level of greatness and viewing pleasure, not transforms him into goat.

Besides, Fed himself said he wants to play till he is 35 and against different generations. Why did he say that - (and the fact that he was asked doesn't stand) ?

I say let him do it, and than we can conclude.