[Nole Rules]

Originally Posted by Sapeod

Serve and volleyers can't compete with the Big 4 in this era. He'd do well because he's a great player but he would have no slams.

As for Agassi, he'd do better but he would still have no slams.

[bounccer]

Originally Posted by Sapeod

Serve and volleyers can't compete with the Big 4 in this era. He'd do well because he's a great player but he would have no slams.

As for Agassi, he'd do better but he would still have no slams.

Sampras and Agassi zero slam?

Sampras level's in some of his slams runs was miles above:

- Murray USO 2012
- Federer Wimbly 2012
- Djokovic USO 2011
- Djokovic Wimbly 2011
- Nadal Wimbly 2012
- Del Po USO 2009
- Federer Wimbly 2009
............

Adding to that: His mental toughness was above all of them

He would have win many slams, for sure, not 14 though.
Agassi would have snatch some too.

[EliSter]

Nole and Nadal would do good in 90s. Nole would still win HC titles and had great shot at Rg and none at Wimb. Nadal would own clay badly and Mugray would be fine too. They are far superior on physical level, fast court or not they would adapt and rack up few slams.

[EliSter]

Originally Posted by bounccer

Sampras and Agassi zero slam?

Sampras level's in some of his slams runs was miles above:

- Murray USO 2012
- Federer Wimbly 2012
- Djokovic USO 2011
- Djokovic Wimbly 2011
- Nadal Wimbly 2012
- Del Po USO 2009
- Federer Wimbly 2009
............

Adding to that: His mental toughness was above all of them

He would have win many slams, for sure, not 14 though.
Agassi would have snatch some too.

Nole 2011 would destroy Sampras in a new one.

[Mark Lenders]

Originally Posted by Sapeod

Serve and volleyers can't compete with the Big 4 in this era. He'd do well because he's a great player but he would have no slams.

As for Agassi, he'd do better but he would still have no slams.

So in short what you want to say is Murray > Agassi and Sampras right

Interestingly, the only player to have beaten each of Big 3 and Murray in Grand Slam play is Tsonga, who happens to be the closest we have to a serve & volleyer among the top players today. And I'm pretty sure Sampras's game was a few notches above Tsonga's to put it mildly...

[juan27]

Originally Posted by bounccer

BTW i think that Sampras would be a nightmare matchup for Nadal and Djokovic, Murray and Federer would probably be much better against him (matchup wise), Murray being the worst.

I agree than sampras would be a bad match-up for nadal because with his great serve and contiunes attacks in the net would break nadal`s rhytm , nadal always need rythm in his matches and sampras all the time with his serve and volley would fastidiate very much nadal.

for me , all the genius of this sports like sampras , federer or nadal would win titles in any time , sampras and agassi zero slams????' my god...

nole 2011 destroying peak sampras????? Sorry man but no......if past peak federer and murray could defeated and fought to the limits with nole , peak sampras no??

[Slasher1985]

Originally Posted by EliSter

Nole and Nadal would do good in 90s. Nole would still win HC titles and had great shot at Rg and none at Wimb. Nadal would own clay badly and Mugray would be fine too. They are far superior on physical level, fast court or not they would adapt and rack up few slams.

So, Nole, Nadal and Murray would adapt in the 90s, but Sampras and Agassi would not adapt in the 2000s. That's either underestimating the two or not being objective at all.

First of all, in the case of each switch, it is mandatory to believe that the players' game will form differently. So, you wouldn't be having the same Sampras or Agassi that adapted for the 90s courts, you would have a different game from both of them and given their enormous talent, they would win Slams, but the era would consist of a Big 6 rather than a Big 4. Nole, Murray and Nadal would also have a different less physical game in the 90s adapted for a faster HC, Carpet and grass, and a slower clay. Their talent would allow them to be big in the 90s as well.

[bounccer]

In the French, this era is ridiculous.

In a 8 years spam, you have as many chances to win the title if all of Kuerten, Muster, Costa, Ferrero, Corretja, Courier and Bruguera are playing at their peak every fucking year (which it obviously wasn't the case) as if there's only Nadal which nobody else.

Basically, in term of preventing you to win this fucking title, Nadal= all of them combined

Federer would have make something like 2 or 3 finals for 1 or 2 titles in the 90s
In this era, it's 5 finals (2005 was almost a final too...)but only one title.

[juan27]

Originally Posted by bounccer

In the French, this era is ridiculous.

In a 8 years spam, you have as many chances to win the title if all of Kuerten, Muster, Costa, Ferrero, Corretja, Courier and Bruguera are playing at their peak every fucking year (which it obviously wasn't the case) as if there's only Nadal which nobody else.

Basically, in term of preventing you to win this fucking title, Nadal= all of them combined

Federer would have make something like 2 or 3 finals for 1 or 2 titles in the 90s
In this era, it's 5 finals (2005 was almost a final too...)but only one title.

nadal would be anyway the clay king but maybe not like now......

rafa never had real clay courts specialists against him , only coria in 2005 and he lost , but at least coria forced epic matches against nadal in clay , after 2005 coria was gone like gaudio and only was fed ( fastcourt specalist ) and now nole ( not clay specialist ).

[Sapeod]

Originally Posted by bounccer

Sampras and Agassi zero slam?

Sampras level's in some of his slams runs was miles above:

- Murray USO 2012
- Federer Wimbly 2012
- Djokovic USO 2011
- Djokovic Wimbly 2011
- Nadal Wimbly 2012
- Del Po USO 2009
- Federer Wimbly 2009
............

Adding to that: His mental toughness was above all of them

He would have win many slams, for sure, not 14 though.
Agassi would have snatch some too.

Wrong. In this era they would not get any slams. Simple as that. They'd do well, no doubt about that, but they would not win slams. Their games (especially Sampras') would not be able on these surfaces. Agassi might be able to snatch one somewhere, but that's a big maybe.

Originally Posted by Mark Lenders

So in short what you want to say is Murray > Agassi and Sampras right

Agassi/Sampras >>> Murray clearly. However, in this era, Murray >>> both of them. The surfaces these days are not helping Sampras or Agassi. Both get beaten by any of the Big 4. Best I can see Agassi being is a slightly better Ferrer. Sampras? A serve and volleyer winning slams nowadays? Don't make me laugh.

Interestingly, the only player to have beaten each of Big 3 and Murray in Grand Slam play is Tsonga, who happens to be the closest we have to a serve & volleyer among the top players today. And I'm pretty sure Sampras's game was a few notches above Tsonga's to put it mildly...

What? Tsonga is not a serve and volleyer. He incorporates serve and volley, but he's a baseliner just like most other players these days. Sampras is purely serve and volley with some baseline play. He is not winning any slams in this era.

[tennizen]

Originally Posted by bounccer

I think the opposite, yes, Agassi is more suited for these slow courts but his game would be nothing special today and he would have a hard time for breaking the unbelievable defense of the top 4 two time in a row.

Sampras would still have some huge weapons, if he's on, even in these slow courts, he would be very hard to beat.

I agree with this.

[Slasher1985]

^Sapeod Yeah, S&V is dead nowadays, but I see Sampras adapting his game as his talent dictates in order to achieve greatness here as well. He would be a slightly weaker version of Federer combined with Roddick. Are we answering "if sampras would have grown and played in this era" or "if sampras would have been kidnapped with a time machine and forced to play in this era" ?

[Sapeod]

If Sampras was so talented and could adapt his game to different surfaces then why was he so terrible on clay?

He would not win any slams, simple as that. His talent would only get him so far. In other words, he'd be a solid top player but not a slam winner.

[juan27]

Originally Posted by Sapeod

If Sampras was so talented and could adapt his game to different surfaces then why was he so terrible on clay?

He would not win any slams, simple as that. His talent would only get him so far. In other words, he'd be a solid top player but not a slam winner.

federer defeated murray in wimbledon using much volley`s game.....sampras was much better in the net than federer.

if murray is an slam winner , sampras not???

[Sapeod]

Originally Posted by juan27

federer defeated murray in wimbledon using much volley`s game.....sampras was much better in the net than federer.

if murray is an slam winner , sampras not???

Do you not get it? Serve and volleyers do not win major titles nowadays. If you're a baseliner who uses serve and volley to mix everything up then it works. If you're prominently a serve and volleyer like Sampras or Llodra then you won't win majors. Simple as that.

Did Federer use only serve and volley like Sampras would? No, he didn't. He was mostly on the baseline, as he usually is nowadays. He used serve and volley every now and then to mix things up, like he usually does. He did not use serve and volley like Sampras does.