PDA

View Full Version : Hypothetical Situation about surfaces and former pros


NamRanger
04-26-2009, 09:56 AM
If we were to put today's conditions, which are overall much slower than they were in the 90s/80s/70s, who do you think would be most dominant in their respective eras?



90s Era : I say Agassi; he's a great slow HC player, and everything today looks to play like a slow HC. Although I think he would have stiff competition from the likes of Chang and Courier, both who are pretty good on slow HCs too.


I didn't watch much tennis of the 80s/70s era, so someone will have to do this part. I would imagine it would be Lendl / Borg though.

thalivest
04-26-2009, 10:23 AM
90s era: Still Sampras. No way would it be Agassi who is way too inconsistent and easily overpowered by an in form Sampras or Courier even when playing well to ever dominate. Sampras beats Agassi on todays grass everytime as well, and the U.S Open courts today are the same. Chang would be a 1 slam wonder whose only slam came in the 80s even with todays court conditions. Slowed down grass would have never been enough to bag him a Wimbledon, he was too many light years from that point to begin with on the fast grass. The other surfaces havent slowed.

The only difference I can think of at any point might be:

80s era: Lendl and Wilander can win Wimbledon this decade now at some point, especialy Lendl.

Cesc Fabregas
04-26-2009, 10:33 AM
Agassi is a funny one it was a great achievment to win every major but he was very fortunate 94 USO- Sampras gets knocked out early (Agassi never beat Sampras at the USO), 99 French Open- avoids all the best claycourters( Moya, Correjta and Kuetren), USO 99- No Sampras in the dra. So I will go with the thalivest that Sampras would do best out of the 90's in these conditons. In the 80's defo Lendl and 70's defo Borg.

NamRanger
04-26-2009, 10:43 AM
Agassi is a funny one it was a great achievment to win every major but he was very fortunate 94 USO- Sampras gets knocked out early (Agassi never beat Sampras at the USO), 99 French Open- avoids all the best claycourters( Moya, Correjta and Kuetren), USO 99- No Sampras in the dra. So I will go with the thalivest that Sampras would do best out of the 90's in these conditons. In the 80's defo Lendl and 70's defo Borg.


Agassi beat Moya in the way to his FO title.

Cesc Fabregas
04-26-2009, 10:44 AM
Agassi beat Moya in the way to his FO title.

Yeah replace Moya with Rios.

thalivest
04-26-2009, 10:48 AM
Agassi beat Moya in the way to his FO title.

Yeah he did but that was based on a complete mental meltdown by Moya once he went up something like 6-2, 4-1. He still never would have beaten Kuerten had they played, nor Rios who owned him even on hard courts at the time.

I agree with Cesc. He got super lucky to win the 99 U.S Open and 99 French Opens as it was. Maybe even the 94 U.S Open, not only avoiding Sampras but also Courier who won all 6 of their matches from 91-95, and having an easy draw all around except for the tough draw of Chang in the 4th round.

I agree with Cesc too that Lendl is even more dominant in the 80s. Borg even more dominant in the 70s if you believe even the hard courts today are slowed down, and who knows maybe he goes on an even longer run at Wimbledon. I cant think who in the 60s it would make a real difference for, Rosewall missed most of the 60s anyway and he is the one it would have helped the most.

380pistol
04-27-2009, 09:48 PM
Agassi is a funny one it was a great achievment to win every major but he was very fortunate 94 USO- Sampras gets knocked out early (Agassi never beat Sampras at the USO), 99 French Open- avoids all the best claycourters( Moya, Correjta and Kuetren), USO 99- No Sampras in the dra. So I will go with the thalivest that Sampras would do best out of the 90's in these conditons. In the 80's defo Lendl and 70's defo Borg.

Uh.... Agassi beat Moya (the defending champion) en route to the 1999 French Open. And as far as Guga in 1999, Agassi also beat the guy who beat him (and Sampras that year) in the final.

380pistol
04-27-2009, 09:49 PM
Yeah he did but that was based on a complete mental meltdown by Moya once he went up something like 6-2, 4-1. He still never would have beaten Kuerten had they played, nor Rios who owned him even on hard courts at the time.

I agree with Cesc. He got super lucky to win the 99 U.S Open and 99 French Opens as it was. Maybe even the 94 U.S Open, not only avoiding Sampras but also Courier who won all 6 of their matches from 91-95, and having an easy draw all around except for the tough draw of Chang in the 4th round.

I agree with Cesc too that Lendl is even more dominant in the 80s. Borg even more dominant in the 70s if you believe even the hard courts today are slowed down, and who knows maybe he goes on an even longer run at Wimbledon. I cant think who in the 60s it would make a real difference for, Rosewall missed most of the 60s anyway and he is the one it would have helped the most.

What is your issue with Agassi?? I have never seen you give him credit for anything, always downtalking him, downplaying edamn near everything he's done.

What you met him and he wouldn't talk to you or give you an autograph or something???

flying24
04-27-2009, 10:06 PM
90s era- Sampras would still be dominant. The grass today is not slowed down enough to stop him from dominating the 90s field on grass. Hard courts are not slowed down so I dont get what difference would be made there.

80s era- As others have said Lendl would be even more dominant

70s era- Borg and Vilas would both benefit.

flying24
04-27-2009, 10:08 PM
And as far as Guga in 1999, Agassi also beat the guy who beat him (and Sampras that year) in the final.

That doesnt mean Agassi would have been able to beat Kuerten though. At Wimbledon 94 McNeil beat Graf but lost to Martinez, but do you think that means Martinez would have been able to beat Graf? Agassi had close to no shot if he had played Kuerten at that years French, especialy in the final.

Arafel
04-28-2009, 07:10 AM
90s era- Sampras would still be dominant. The grass today is not slowed down enough to stop him from dominating the 90s field on grass. Hard courts are not slowed down so I dont get what difference would be made there.

80s era- As others have said Lendl would be even more dominant

70s era- Borg and Vilas would both benefit.

For the 70s, I find it funny how people are talking about how Borg would benefit more (and Vilas). Think of the Slams. In the 70s, the top players (Borg, Connors, McEnroe), didn't play Australia, because it was considered a second tier tournament. That leaves Wimbledon, the French and the US.

Vilas won the French when Borg got upset by Panetta. Borg owned Wimbledon, and I don't think that changes even if the grass is the modern slower version. That leaves the US, which from 75-77 got played on CLAY!

If anyone might do better if the US is played on hard courts, even slower hard courts, after 74, it's Connors. Do you think Connors loses the 75 final to Orantes or the 77 final to Vilas on hard courts? No way. Hell, maybe Tanner sneaks into the final instead behind his booming serve.

The other thing to mention is that during those three years, there was a summer clay court swing in the US instead of a summer hard court swing. Again, this benefits Borg and Vilas over Connors, McEnroe and others.

To me, this theoretical thing has to be considered from 75 on, not before, since Borg, Vilas and Connors really didn't start their rise until 74, so they had one year where three Slams were on grass, then three years, in their primes, where two Slams were on clay.

As for 78 and 79, well, in 78, Connors, though benefiting from Borg's blister, played like a demon possessed in the final, and slowing down the courts a little isn't going to change that. Maybe it changes the results in 79, but it's a well known fact that Borg HATED playing at night, so I don't know if it helps him there either.

As for Vilas, well, he was a solid player but, considering the racquets of the time, was vulnerable to attacking players on surfaces other than clay, so even if the hard courts are slower in 78 and 79 I don't think it makes much difference.