SLD76
G.O.A.T.
honestly..so what?
this discussions is based on what fed did and what he possibly could do in a different era, not what laver coulda maybe done.
geez.
How would Federer do in the 90's?
- Thread starter Anti-Fedal
- Start date
honestly..so what?
this discussions is based on what fed did and what he possibly could do in a different era, not what laver coulda maybe done.
geez.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Laver turned professional soon after winning the 1962 Grand Slam. Professional tennis players couldn't play at the mainstream majors until April 1968.
I've be watching over quite a lot of Coria's matches lately. Coria was hardly at his best in either match against Federer in Hamburg. In fact, there's only 5 clay-court tournaments where I have Coria playing at or near his very best tennis, 2003 Hamburg, 2003 Stuttgart, 2003 Kitzbuhel, 2003 Sopot, 2004 French Open. In these tournaments, he was breathtaking.
2004 Monte Carlo was up and down for Coria, a brilliant final in beating Schuettler (where Coria was at his best), but tough matches in earlier rounds against Pavel and Safin where he dropped sets, and a error littered first set against Nalbandian from both players before Coria won. Soon after winning 2004 Monte Carlo, Coria has an abdominal injury and is forced to miss 2004 Barcelona and 2004 Rome, and was just back in time for 2004 Hamburg to defend his title there. Coria struggles through to the final of 2004 Hamburg, winning epics against Almagro and Ljubicic and another close one against Horna. In the final against Federer, Federer is too good on the day and this is compounded by Coria having a blister on his right hand, which even Federer mentioned in his winning speech.
2003 was an excellent year for Coria on the whole, where he seemed to be improving as a player all the time under the coaching of Alberto Mancini. He had career best performances in the majors (despite a very disappointing loss to Verkerk in the semi finals of the French Open), and showed his very best tennis in the clay-court tournaments he won that year (Hamburg, Stuttgart, Kitzbuhel, Sopot), particularly in the July-August period in Europe. He also won on indoor carpet in Basel.
2004 was very stop-start for Coria, some brilliance in matches but there would be frustrating things happening such as the first round loss to Saulnier at the Australian Open and the firing of Alberto Mancini as his coach, winning Buenos Aires on clay and winning epics against Benneteau and Gonzalez in Miami before having to retire in the final against Roddick due to kidney stones. After he passed those kidney stones, he won Monte Carlo but then had an abdominal injury which put him out for weeks.
Then Coria loses to Federer in the 2004 Hamburg final and the 31-match winning streak on clay with it. Coria goes into the French Open as the favourite, announcing that he's in perfect condition to the win the tournament, plays his very best tennis up until the semi finals. In the semi finals, he gets through a tricky match against serve and volleyer, Henman, playing awesomely during that 13 game winning streak from 3-6, 2-4 to leading 3-6, 6-4, 6-0, 3-0. In the final against Gaudio, which people know about, Coria dominates and looks to be heading for an easy straight sets victory, before all sorts of intangibles start happening and lead to Coria's eventual loss. Coria fires his coach, Fabian Blengino, and goes with Gabriel Markus, reaches a grass-court final in 's-Hertogenbosch, but then badly injures his right shoulder during his second round match at 2004 Wimbledon against Florian Mayer, which requires surgery in August 2004.
2005 Coria was a less confident player on court. He was consistent on all surfaces, still displayed some brilliance on court, and still had some epic matches, but he was not as confident. And in July 2005 came the service yips, and the beginning of the end.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
It could be because they played in a weaker era.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
I am so sure Laver would win the Slam in 1962 if he played a full field, LOL!
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
And that sir, is complete pwnage
Well done
Besides, Laver did play the Pro Circuit in 1963-1967 and it's not like he dominated, won roughly 50% of the Pro Slams while Rosewall collected the other half, besides Laver won nothing in 1963 and was owned by his main rivals which confirms how "relevant" his 1962 Slam was.
mightyrick
Legend
I think Laver knew this argument would come up eventually...
... so he decided to do it again in 1969... just to eliminate any possible doubt. Very kind of him, don't you think?
You're only translating it for you who lives in a fantasy world and filled with nothing but hate/bitter toward Federer. Winning Wimbledon/USO back-to-back is impressive enough already, but to do it 5 consecutive times is mind boggling.
It's a unique accomplishment and will stand the test of time. I know it's killing you.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
I don't care, Laver would never do the Slam in 1962 if his biggest rivals weren't already pros.
Saying ignorant is not flaming. But for you(and NadalAgassi) keep making up stuff that other members never said is out of the line. That's warrant for ban.
Many old-timers said Laver wasn't even the best player in 1962. Imagine all the top players today playing in a separate field and let Murray play in a weak field all by himself. He could win the GRand Slam himself.
Oh, Laver conceded that todays 1 Grand Slam is worth 2 in his era.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Also, I'm sure Laver would win the CYGS if he faced prime Nadal at the FO instead of Rosewall who despite being an all-time great on clay, had his weaker days in which Laver took advantage (see 1969 final). Everything lined up perfectly for Laver in 1969.
Take Nadal out in 2005-2007 and Federer is unbeaten in majors for 3 years and "defends" the CYGS in 2007.
Take Nadal out in 2005-2007 and Federer is unbeaten in majors for 3 years and "defends" the CYGS in 2007.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
No but he did it in 1969 vs one of the deepest mens fields in history (a field that makes any Federer has had look like a complete joke by comparision, and Federer still couldnt do it). Oh yeah he did at age 31 too, Federer might win 0 slams after his 31st bithday.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Laver seems to disagree.
abmk
Bionic Poster
that's an elaborate description of coria in those years. But nevertheless, I did not say that coria played his very best tennis in hamburg 2004,2005 when he met federer.
coria's best years overall and on clay were 2003-05 ... federer wasn't 'lucky' to avoid him. He actually beat him twice in his best years on clay.. my point stands.
federer is as superior CCer overall and IMO prime to prime was better ....
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Make 3 majors on fast grass and watch what Federer does, even after his 31st birthday. Nadal would still be looking for a first major outside of the FO.
Tennis wasn't a global sport in 69 in which over half of the players are from Aussie that represent the Australian Open. Even though it was the open era, tennis was still a small pool until the establishment of the ATP in 1972. That was when tennis starting to spread, other nations having their own atp tournaments, attract athletes thus more players pursuing tennis which the tour(pool) continue to grow til this day.
kiki
Banned
kiki
Banned
I do agree but Eddo is not an all time australian great...you know that.Rafter may be put in perspective, though.
abmk
Bionic Poster
just because Aussies were dominant in the 60s doesn't negate that the game became more global after the advent of the open era. even more so during the borg-connors-mac 'era' so to speak ....
How do you explain the draw consist of mainly from Aussie? Of the top 16 players, 10 players are from Aussie, 3 are from USA, which left with only 3 from other nation. In a highly globalize sport(soccer is #1 and tennis is #2), you would have more players coming from every place around the world, not just one or two nations. This hold true for the WTA when it was also established in the early 70s. Tennis begin to be more and more of a global sport.
The Dark Knight
Legend
The same year Federer beat Sampras he also went I think 0-3 or 0-4 against rafter .
So I don't think Federer would have done very well.
So I don't think Federer would have done very well.
Well, assuming that he takes the place of Sampras..
With Sampras around though, he wouldn't have much of a chance on fast hardcourts and grass. On 90's grass also would also struggled against Becker, Edberg, Stich, Ivanisevic, Krajicek and Rafter. Agassi would threaten him on all surfaces.
Bruguera. Muster and later on Kuerten would have the edge against Fed on clay.
But he would snatch away a few majors, just like Courier and Kafelnikoff did.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Mark Edmondson was the last of the long line, though. I know Pat Cash, Patrick Rafter and Lleyton Hewitt have all won majors since then, but Edmondson was the last in a long line of the dominant period for Australian tennis.
The Australian dominance of tennis in the 1960s was THAT great. It makes Spain's recent domination look tiny in comparison.
abmk
Bionic Poster
you should stop thinking. he didn't go 0-3 or 0-4 against rafter in any year.
kiki
Banned
Yes, I agree.Federer never played on old grass.But of the current era guys he is the only one with a slight chance at it.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Because of more television coverage, a higher profile and thus more sponsors and money coming into tennis. Before the open era, the tennis establishment did not like professional tennis, and even after the open era, the establishment wanted to hang on to as many of the old privileges as they could, hence the political struggles of the 1970s, and to a lesser extent in the 1980s.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Your posts are nothing but hyperbole. Today's field is far deeper than the 60's.
M
monfed
Guest
Is Mustard doing the usual of handing Laver imaginary slams? :lol:
Mustard
Bionic Poster
What are you saying?
abmk
Bionic Poster
lol, fed would edge out sampras on every surface there is. he'd thrash him on clay, have a big edge at slow HCs of the AO ( sampras was losing to the likes of kucera, phillippoussis there )
have the edge at wimbledon
have the edge at the USO ( where sampras was losing to yzaga, korda , rafter and had to save MPs vs corretja , fed was undefeated for 5 years there )
and yes, even the YEC ( where sampras never won without losing a RR match, and was even losing to the likes of moya, corretja who were slow court specialists )
edberg was done in slams after wimbledon 93.
rafter wasn't in serious picture on grass till 2000
becker's best on grass was from 85-90 , not in the mid-90s .
ivanisevic was a headcase .wouldn't be able to close it out vs prime federer like he couldn't with prime sampras . and obviously federer being a better returner than sampras would put more pressure on his serve.
krajicek was just too injury-prone ...
ROFL at agassi threatening federer on all surfaces .. he'd need to be not MIA for 4, 4 and half years ( like was from 93-mid 94 and 96-98 ) at majors to do so ... and even at the peak of his powers wouldn't win against federer on grass if federer was playing well ...he'd need federer to be extremely sub-par ( which federer wasn't in any grass court match for 7 long years )
courier ? kafelnikov ??????
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
nice punchline to end the joke ...........
Last edited:
kiki
Banned
which Wimbledon kinda of grass? which USO kiinda hard court? major indoors which kind of court?
AO dominated tennis because there wasn't that much competition. This is also hold true for American basketball...they are not as dominant as they were in the 60s because the sport became more global sport. There are more foreign players flooded the NBA, much like many difference players from other countries flooded the ATP.
Wake me up when one nation has over half of the top players represent the slam event.
Here's the top 16 at this year AO:
1. Nole
2. Federer
3. Murray
4. Ferrer
5. Berdych
6. Del Potro
7. Tsonga
8. Tipseravic
9. Gasquet
10. Almagro
11. Monaco
12. Cilic
13. Raonic
14. Simon
15. Wawrinka
16. Nishikori
More global, more diversity.
abmk
Bionic Poster
both eras.
would be close on both, closer in the 90s , but federer would hold the edge on both.
unlike what many of his delusional fans and casual observers of the sport believe, sampras didn't actually like the surfaces to be too fast ....
he said he need help breaking, not holding
I agree with that given that the speed of the surfaces starts from medium-fast.
This held true especially vs excellent servers .........that happened when he faced the likes of krajicek, stich, becker, ivanisevic etc ....
Last edited:
kiki
Banned
Becker,Edberg and Sampras would baggel him on fast indoor or grass more often than not.
And he´d be no clay court serious opponent to Bruguera,Kuerten,Muster, not on a consistent basis
Maybe he´d have a better chance at the USO or AO, but Agaassi and Sampras would be very tough there...
7-8 majors is reasonable for Fed in the 90´s, IF conditions were those of the 90´s not those of today.that point must be cleared out.
And he´d be no clay court serious opponent to Bruguera,Kuerten,Muster, not on a consistent basis
Maybe he´d have a better chance at the USO or AO, but Agaassi and Sampras would be very tough there...
7-8 majors is reasonable for Fed in the 90´s, IF conditions were those of the 90´s not those of today.that point must be cleared out.
kiki
Banned
compleltely contrary to today, you just cannot survive on the fast indoor,hard or grass of the 90´s and 80´s without a good volley and a solid serve and volley game.
we, seasoned and expert posters have already established the quality of Fed´s net game already...( and he is the only one from the 2000´s onwards¡¡¡¡)
we, seasoned and expert posters have already established the quality of Fed´s net game already...( and he is the only one from the 2000´s onwards¡¡¡¡)
abmk
Bionic Poster
that's a load of cr*p ...
lendl , connors, borg and agassi did just fine without an excellent serve and volley game overall on grass, fast indoor and carpet ...
none of them were better at the net than federer is ( yes, that includes borg whose volleying at wimbledon was aided a hell lot by the balls just dropping dead on the low grass, otherwise technically, he was quite inferior to fed volleying wise )
fed's net game was pretty good in the first half of 2000s, it only deterorated with lesser use. In the 90s, it would be much better .........
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
LOL, ha ha ha ha ha ha ........do you even look at what you post ..... since the turn of the century, federer has been bagelled only once - don't think it has to be stated when ...
any of them would be lucky to get more than a break in one set vs a very sub-par federer given the strength of the federer service game.
the best among those 3 , sampras , was losing to muster, moya , corretja and ferreira indoors/carpet for heaven's sake....
oh yea, he absolutely would be . and he's had a far longer prime period on clay than any of them
he'd be the dominant player at both the AO and the USO ...
Last edited:
kiki
Banned
Hard to have a solid opinion if you are not a Golden Poster ( as per Golden Era)
kiki
Banned
Fed never smelt fast indoor, fast grass and so on.
it´d be a cruel sight seeing peak Becker and peak Sampras facing slow courter expert Federer...
we never know, but we all know he´d be trashed on clay by peaks AA,Bruguera,Courier and Kuerten while he´d find it toigh to beat peak Muster or peak Chang.
he never faced a serious s&v player like those of the 90´s.Henman was weak and Sampras very lazy and old...
abmk
Bionic Poster
enough with the so called Golden era BS ..
explain which of lendl, borg, connors, agassi had solid volleying techniques and were better at the net than federer ......... didn't they do fine on grass, indoors carpet ?
duh !
M
monfed
Guest
Go easy on kiki, the oldman likes to reminisce the time he spent getting high smoking pot while listening to Led Zep. :lol:
Federer's numbers would be alot lower due to the fact that in the 90s there were alot more specialists who were far more capable of upsetting players. The playing conditions were significantly different, and the only real slam Federer could consistently avoid upsets is at Wimbledon. The issue is that at Wimbledon in the early to mid 90s, Federer would have faced absurdly stiff competition from Sampras, so they would have split a few titles.
Then when you come to the USO/AO, there are so many good players you have to beat from round 3 and up, it's just ridiculous to think Federer would have won the same number of slams. He'd still win alot no doubt, the guy is ridiculously good. He'd probably end up being world #1, and slightly ahead in slam count of Sampras. However, his overall slam count would be less than it is now just because of the depth of competition back then, along with completely different playing conditions.
Remember, he'd be having to deal with the likes of Becker, Courier, Chang, Sampras, Agassi, Kuerten, etc. not to mention specialists like Goran, Henman, Kraijcek, Muster, etc. etc. For Federer to survive that entire gauntlet would be an nightmare for any player, which is why many people firmly believe that Sampras' earlier competition (pre-96) was far superior than what Federer faced.
Then when you come to the USO/AO, there are so many good players you have to beat from round 3 and up, it's just ridiculous to think Federer would have won the same number of slams. He'd still win alot no doubt, the guy is ridiculously good. He'd probably end up being world #1, and slightly ahead in slam count of Sampras. However, his overall slam count would be less than it is now just because of the depth of competition back then, along with completely different playing conditions.
Remember, he'd be having to deal with the likes of Becker, Courier, Chang, Sampras, Agassi, Kuerten, etc. not to mention specialists like Goran, Henman, Kraijcek, Muster, etc. etc. For Federer to survive that entire gauntlet would be an nightmare for any player, which is why many people firmly believe that Sampras' earlier competition (pre-96) was far superior than what Federer faced.
Last edited:
kiki
Banned
except phenomenal backcourter Agassi, the others had far better volleying abilities than federer, and any of them would venture in one match to the net more than the " swiss maestro" in a whole year...
Agassi never won anything big indoors, BTW ( exccept the 1990 Masters which was such a big big surprise for us seasoned experts)
abmk
Bionic Poster
oh yes, he did quite a bit in his early years on tour - including when he took out 4 time defending champion sampras @ wimbledon in 2001 ... also beat krajicek and goran twice on carpet ( though they did have their problems back then ) but then fed himself was pre-prime at that time ,.....
and still does ( though less frequently ) - including dominating at cincy , the fastest HC masters on tour ...
bwahaha, federer's best surface is a medium-fast to fast surface. not slow courts ......... where do you get these delusions from ?
he'd beat chang and agassi hands down on clay prime to prime. His movement and serving is far too superior to agassi's. chang doesn't have the firepower to trouble him unless he is off ...
kuerten is the only one who is clearly better prime to prime on clay .... courier, bruguera and muster are at similar level ...
LMAO ... 4 time defending champion at wimbledon sampras was lazy and old ? federer also beat phillippoussis who had an excellent run in wimbledon 2003
kiki
Banned
yes, it was called music, not copy and past me that sound as in your wondeful Bieber&Rhinanan era.tennis and music death go hand on hand...oh¡¡ and the pots were healthier than your current era pills...
Similar threads
