Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 126 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,316 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
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?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
18,509 Posts
Olderer would have had a positive W/L % against everyone in the 90's because it was a mug era.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,074 Posts
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)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,316 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
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 ...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,316 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
And yeah, I forgot to mention that Federer is 1-2 vs. Guga...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,570 Posts
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...
 

·
Forum Umpire:, Gaston Gaudio,
Joined
·
124,506 Posts
The classic what if scenario, it must be off season already.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,074 Posts
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.
 

·
Forum Umpire:, Gaston Gaudio,
Joined
·
124,506 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,570 Posts
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.
 

·
Hakeem
Joined
·
5,234 Posts
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Action Jackson

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,755 Posts
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.
 

·
Forum Umpire:, Gaston Gaudio,
Joined
·
124,506 Posts
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.
 

·
Forum Umpire:, Gaston Gaudio,
Joined
·
124,506 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
528 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,371 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,371 Posts
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.
 
1 - 20 of 126 Posts
Top