Anti-Fedal
Professional
Had he been born 10 years earlier, what does everybody think his career would look like?
Likely would have won a Calendar Grand Slam
Had he been born 10 years earlier, what does everybody think his career would look like?
He'd be even more effective (slower conditions now benefit Rafito and Horus more than our Eagle).
Likely would have won a Calendar Grand Slam
Fed played in the 90s. He played his first ATP event in 1998. His game worked much better in the 2000s though...
Fed played in the 90s. He played his first ATP event in 1998. His game worked much better in the 2000s though...
I would have liked to see 1996 Sampras vs 2006 Federer at Wimbledon and US Open
Sampras would be better than Federer on 90s style grass without question, and Federer would have alot of strong competition there besides Pete. So probably only 1 or 2 Wimbledons vs the 7 he has now.
U.S Open would be between him and Pete with some other contenders. Maybe 2 or 3 there.
Australian Open he would have alot of competition from Agassi. Probably 2 or 3 titles there.
French there was a ton more depth on clay then but no clay courters near Nadals level (but many of them around Federers level which is obviously light years below Nadals) so 1 or 2 titles there.
On average probably something like 8 vs the 16 he has now.
Sampras would be better than Federer on 90s style grass without question, and Federer would have alot of strong competition there besides Pete. So probably only 1 or 2 Wimbledons vs the 7 he has now.
U.S Open would be between him and Pete with some other contenders. Maybe 2 or 3 there.
Australian Open he would have alot of competition from Agassi. Probably 2 or 3 titles there.
French there was a ton more depth on clay then but no clay courters near Nadals level (but many of them around Federers level which is obviously light years below Nadals) so 1 or 2 titles there.
On average probably something like 8 vs the 16 he has now.
Did he lose one recently?
Sampras would be better than Federer on 90s style grass without question, and Federer would have alot of strong competition there besides Pete. So probably only 1 or 2 Wimbledons vs the 7 he has now.
U.S Open would be between him and Pete with some other contenders. Maybe 2 or 3 there.
Australian Open he would have alot of competition from Agassi. Probably 2 or 3 titles there.
French there was a ton more depth on clay then but no clay courters near Nadals level (but many of them around Federers level which is obviously light years below Nadals) so 1 or 2 titles there.
On average probably something like 8 vs the 16 he has now.
so you guys are basically saying Federer was in a week era...
good work OP... "Anti-Fedal"... only took one post...
hmmmmmmmm....
Just saying Rafa on clay is about as nightmare as a match up for Fed as you can get. Put prime Fed in 90s and on grass vs Sampras I think Fed can beat him...same goes for US Open, Fed is best hard courter in history. Clay....ain't no Nadal there, so Fed will surely have a much better chance of getting a FO. AO...Agassi was missing for prolonged periods of time and his best results there came a bit later.
No joke, Fed would have won a GS...wins AO and FO takes out the toughest challenge Sampras in W, and then the USO is done
Sampras would be better than Federer on 90s style grass without question, and Federer would have alot of strong competition there besides Pete. So probably only 1 or 2 Wimbledons vs the 7 he has now.
U.S Open would be between him and Pete with some other contenders. Maybe 2 or 3 there.
Australian Open he would have alot of competition from Agassi. Probably 2 or 3 titles there.
French there was a ton more depth on clay then but no clay courters near Nadals level (but many of them around Federers level which is obviously light years below Nadals) so 1 or 2 titles there.
On average probably something like 8 vs the 16 he has now.
Not a weak era, just no one of Sampras' calibre on hards and grass. It's not like Sampras had anyone of Federer's calibre either...
very true... sampras was pretty amazing. was one of my tennis role models growing up.
Pete was 29 at that time and was the defending champion.Oh and Fed was 19.The only time they played (older Sampras)
6–7(7), 7–5, 4–6, 7–6(2), 5–7 -Fed wins
fed would have had a very tough time at Wimbledon.
that and 2000's Roddick would be owning Wimbledon
USO is done? So 5 time US open winner Sampras is just some chump. Or are we assuming that the ONE match that pre-prime Fed vs post-prime Sampras that Fed won IN 5 SETS is conclusive evidence that Sampras is no problem for Fed?
If we replace 2003-2012 by 93-2002 I think Fed would still have around 17 slams due to his longevity but his distribution would be slightly different. From 93-02 , I would split the 10 Wimbledons's 5- Fed, 5- Sampras. Same with the USO. and then Fed would likely have 3 RG's (Kuerten being main competition) and probably 5 AO (with Agassi, Sampras/others taking the rest). So I don't think Fed's count would be affected but he would still have a really hard time winning the calendar grand slam if Sampras was competing hard with him for both Wimby and USO.
Did he lose one recently?
You (and the rest) seem to think Federer would have developed the same type of game and strategy had he been born 10 years earlier. I am almost sure he wouldn't.
Sampras, Krajicek and Edberg were baseline players when they were junior, the three of them had a two-handed-backhand (Sampras two-handed-backhand was his best shot according to many when he was 13-14 years old). They all changed to a one-handed backhand and a more aggresive and net-oriented game because the two biggest tournaments in the 80s and 90s were Wimbledon and the US OPEN.
If he could get those first three slams...hell yeah I like hos chances of gettimg one more for that particular year and getting a Calendar Year Grand Slam..not saying Sampras is a chump there, but under the scenario one must more than like Fed's chances of taking care of business at the USO
There is a reason calendar slams are ridiculously hard to achieve even when there have been many dominant players. During Fed's 3 slam years, he was by far the best player on both hard and grass. Hewitt/Roddick etc are fierce competitors but they are not in Sampras league (so say the numbers, not just my opinion). If Fed played in the Sampras era, he would only be the slight favorite at USO/Wimby (and I'm being generous here because their records have both of them tied). The chances of taking Muster/Kuerten out at RG and then Sampras out at both Wimby and USO, all in the same year are a lot lower than you think.
There is a reason calendar slams are ridiculously hard to achieve even when there have been many dominant players. During Fed's 3 slam years, he was by far the best player on both hard and grass. Hewitt/Roddick etc are fierce competitors but they are not in Sampras league (so say the numbers, not just my opinion). If Fed played in the Sampras era, he would only be the slight favorite at USO/Wimby (and I'm being generous here because their records have both of them tied). The chances of taking Muster/Kuerten out at RG and then Sampras out at both Wimby and USO, all in the same year are a lot lower than you think.
But still better than battling Clay God
Roger Federer has a special streak on clay courts that stretches back to 2002. He has reached the final of at least one major clay tournament every year since 2002 - That is 11 straight seasons.
2002 - Hamburg
2003 - Rome
2004 - Hamburg
2005 - Hamburg,
2006 - MC, Rome, RG
2007 - MC, Hamburg, RG
2008 - MC, Hamburg, RG
2009 - Madrid, RG
2010 - Madrid
2011 - RG
2012 - Madrid
Not saying that Fed would win the calendar year grandslam, but outside of 95 what year would Muster have ever been a danger at RG. Muster took himself out all the time, he for some reason sucked in France. I also don't think Fed would ever have to worry about baby Guga. The first half of the 90s the Courier/Brug/Agassi/Gomez/Muster (90-95) would be much more difficult than the 96-99. Personally I believe Fed 06,07 easily wins 96 and 97. Whether Fed wins 98 in 08 form is debatable (honestly minus that awful nadal match) he played well on clay that year and I don't think Moya was much of a threat. 99 Agassi would be an interesting one as well.
However in the later half of the nineties I feel Fed could do huge damage in France. Hell more so than at Wimbledon. Mostly because the clay court field in the late 90s was ridiculous inconsistent and inexperienced, Fed would never have to worry about running to them all in a row, because they couldn't even go the distance multiple times. Just look in the later rounds from 96-99 all four semifinalists failed to make it to the semifinals in any of the other years. Even put 95 in the mix the only one who made two semifinals from 95-99 was Brug. However I agree calendar slam is out the picture as if we assume the world where everything lines up perfectly his best chance is probably 98 or 99 and Fed was definitely past his best by those years.
Sampras would be better than Federer on 90s style grass without question, and Federer would have alot of strong competition there besides Pete. So probably only 1 or 2 Wimbledons vs the 7 he has now.
You do not remember this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hWCyyMgbrc
Admittedly, Sampras was old in 2001, but Federer was not yet at his top!
Why would baby Guga be easy for Federer. Old crippled Kuerten who was way worse than baby Guga certainly wasnt easy for Federer at RG 2004 was he.
Why would baby Guga be easy for Federer. Old crippled Kuerten who was way worse than baby Guga certainly wasnt easy for Federer at RG 2004 was he.
Sampras was 29. He was the champion of the previous Wimbledon. He was still making finals of other grand slams and masters.
Sampras was 29. He was the champion of the previous Wimbledon. He was still making finals of other grand slams and masters.
Yes you're right, amigo!
I just wanted to say that (even if he was still making finals of other grand slams and masters), he was not more at his top, like in 1995-96, but Federer was not at his top neither.