Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Anti-Fedal, Apr 25, 2013.
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
Yeah, Sampras at Wimbledon would have been the key to completing the Grand Slam, rather than Rafa at the French. But since grass is his best surface...
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.
federer would have more RGs for sure.
his big competition at RG would have been Guga. I think he would have lost to him a couple more times, but not the same extent as he lost to Nadal... Rafa is just such a bad match-up.
BETTER THAN SAMPRAS, THAT'S FOR SURE.
I'd like to hear what 90'sclay has to say about it. How many majors would Roger win, bro, 3?
i think he would have fewer wimbledons. Sampras would have taken a couple off of him for sure, if not splitting them almost evenly.
probably compensated for the fewer wimbledons with more RGs and more AOs and certainly more US Opens.
Agassi wouldn't exist. To have both Federer and Sampras beating up on him would have been too much. Probably would have ended up being a good baseballer, or TV actor.
About 17 + 11 slams give or take a couple if he gets bored and retires early due to lack of competition. Winning 12 to 16 consecutive slams might have that effect.
Probably a little worse off in terms of number of slams due to Sampras on hard and grass. But no one would be mentioning h2h and he'd possibly be more balanced in terms of clay. Sampras would be much worse off though.
I don't know but as sure as hell 90's Federer would acheive 10x as much as Sampras would in the current slow era.
Agree, only Nadal the clay goat could only stop Federer.
I would have liked to see 1996 Sampras vs 2006 Federer at Wimbledon and US Open
Fed played in the 90s. He played his first ATP event in 1998. His game worked much better in the 2000s though...
Stupid post. He was teenager in the 90's, he didn't find his game properly until 2003. Nothing to do with the conditions favoring him more in 90's, he just wasn't developed until then.
Yes, and he as fully developed and was in his prime.
Oh hell yes. That would of been an awesome match.
Is Sampras still in the 90s? Is Agassi still there as well? Are we lining him up to hit hims prime right at the time of Sampras.
On 90s grass I'm giving Sampras say 5 wimbledons from 90-00 and Federer 3, Agassi probably doesn't win his the early 90s stay the same and I imagine Krajicek wins none either.
On 90s US Open I say they both win 4.
90s Australian Open, I imagine Fed can beat Sampras here. Sampras gets 1 probably this time and I imagine Fed takes away Kafelinkov's, Kodra's and Becker's Australian open wins in the later 90s. I'm gonna say Fed still only gets 4 but Sampras is probably going to lose 1 to Fed.
90s clay. Federer wins one possibly two. He definitely could beat Kafelinkov, Baby Moya or Baby Guga to grab two of those. Baby Guga being the hardest out of those.
Fed 3+4+4+2 = 13
Samp 5+4+1 = 10
Though I don't stand by these numbers but I say both will get into the 10 range, but low 10 range and people will know them for having a ridiculous rivalry. Fed isn't winning any calendar slams and neither will have the amount of time at number 1 as they had. However If this scenario happened it would be similar to Navratilova/Evert and they would get a ton of credit for playing against some of equal skill all the time.
Waiting for The Order to say he wouldn't win a 500 event.
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.
You don't watch tennis. Never have.
Did he lose one recently?
NA likes to think his FO doesn't count.
Agassi won the AO once in the 90's and you think he's stopping peak Federer there consistantly? lol.
so you guys are basically saying Federer was in a week era...
good work OP... "Anti-Fedal"... only took one post...
Not as much consistency on the HC and grass since the faster surfaces would often have a hot hand upsetting top players...rare to see today. However, he would be a monster on clay...definitely more than one FO.
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...
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.
^^ You should put 'younger Federer' in there as well.
Edit: meant for Alchemy...
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.
Had they been raised 10-15 years later and Sampras, Edberg and Krajicek would have mantained their two-handed-backhands and would have played a totally different type of tennis (mainly baseline tennis).
With Federer is just the opposite. Had he been born 10 years earlier he would have developed much more his net-game, he would have been a much better volleyer (than what he has showed in the 00s) and I think he would have been, at least, as good as Sampras was in WB and USO in the 90s.
On the other hand, his baseline game, his top-spin, his patience to play many long points from the baseline, would probably not be the same, (in the 00s he had to develop much more this skills even on hard courts and even on grass, and that helped him tremendously when playing on clay).
In reality no one has a clue how it would have been, but I really think he wouldn't play as he has played in the 00s (he would have used much more net game I am sure) and I really think he would have been as successful as he has been in the 00s (more or less), with the obvious differences because of being in a totally different era with totally different conditions.
very true... sampras was pretty amazing. was one of my tennis role models growing up.
I think Federer would have the edge personally, but it would be an intense rivalry.
Pete was 29 at that time and was the defending champion.Oh and Fed was 19.
NadalAgassi show yourself in the thread again and defend that post you made...please...I want to see how you get out of that one!
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
Sorry I meant 17, it was a typo.
I agree he would have had a slightly different game but it is pretty clear he was never going to have a serve the level of Sampras, nor be as good a volleyer, net player, or even transition forward to net player as Sampras, and those are the things that win first and foremost on 90s style grass. Sampras also was mentally tougher and played the urgent points better, which again is crucial on 90s grass where you get so few chances. Sampras ground game also worked very well on grass, his slice was atleast on par with Federer, and his forehand inconsistency wasnt so important as he was able to put away points quickly or make devastating approaches of that side that ended points fast.
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.
If you think of winning the Grand Slam as a cumulative probability
Prob (AO) x Prob (RG) x Prob (Wimby) x Prob (USO)
Let's say for Fed's peak years in 04-07 it used to be (assuming Fed was in the finals) AO - 90% vs any opposition, RG 20% , Wimby 90% , USO 90%
If put in the 90s, it would be AO - 75% , RG 50%, Wimby 55% (slight favorite over sampras), USO 55% (slight favorite over Sampras)
If you multiply these you will find only a slight increase in the cumulative probability for Fed's grand slam.
But still better than battling Clay God
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.
Since Fed is so consistent on clay, I think he has a great shot at winning the GS given many oppotunities. Hitman posted a list of tournaments that Fed have made the finals since 2002. Thanks hitman.
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.
Fed would definitely have many shots at RG but you also have to line those up with winning Wimby and USO in the same year. Obviously he would have chances, I just don't think they would be significantly better than his chances from 04-07. All it would have taken was for Nadal to be a bit off his game/injured etc and Fed would have had a calendar slam.
You do not remember this?
Admittedly, Sampras was old in 2001, but Federer was not yet at his top!
Sampras was 29. He was the champion of the previous Wimbledon. He was still making finals of other grand slams and masters.
because they probably never watched anything pre-2003......the ignorance of simple truth that neither sampras nor federer would have learned, trained and played the sport the way they did in their respective eras had they not been part of their eras, only goes to show how lame some of these posts are.......
we just can't drop 2006 "ksix-one 90, latest luxilon string, homogenous surfaces, ITF pampered" federer in the 90s, cite his consistency and affirm that he would dominate 1996 "prostaff, gut string, diverse surfaces, ITF un-pampered" sampras.......if we want to compare, we have to level the field and compare common aspects.......not just what suits our agenda.......
i really doubt federer or nadal would have accomplished the career slam in the 90s.......possibly in the 70s or 80s but not 90s which was the most diverse and difficult period in tennis........we can dig back all we want, no other era will present you surfaces with grandslam speeds varying vastly from "blinding speed" to "dead slow" AND rackets that were starting to get better technologically which made it that much more harder to dominate across different surfaces because of drastic differences from surface to surface demanding totally different approaches on different surfaces.......it was an era which kept most top players on their feet right through their careers.......
borg with that style of tennis, no way he would have won 6 french and 5 wimbledons in the 90s.......that kind of dominance across two totally different surfaces would only be possible in an era like this one or in those times when rackets weren't as effective as to demand totally different skills on different surfaces unlike surfaces in the 90s did.......
One thing for sure, Nadal in his prime would kick the ass of this brazilian transexual, anytime !
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.
Impossible to say. People love to bring court conditions into it, but the advances in string technology is rarely, if ever, brought up. The advances made in Polyester strings were a game changer. It is just as much responsible for the rise of baseline, counter-punching as anything.
The fact is that Federer matured and hit his stride right around the time all those changes were taking place. He was a very aggressive player (watch his 2001 upset of Sampras) earlier in his career, but adjust his game based on the changing conditions. I think that's one of the reasons he's been so good for so long. He tweaked his game to play more on the basline as is necessary in today's tennis, but had the aggressive game in his pocket from the previous years, which has translated into the all-court game he is now known for.
My general opinion is that these guys are the greatest of their era, which leads me to believe they would succeed at an extremely high level in any era.
Would he win more French Open's? Maybe. But, then again, he may have been a Sampras clone had the changes not occurred that lead him to adjust his game. He admits Sampras is the guy he idolized growing up, so who would he have styled his game after had he been the same age as Pete. Like I said, these what ifs raise endless questions and possibilities - and the changes between the mid-90's and now, or even between the late-90's and now make it very difficult to play that game.
sampras was mentally fried and finished after wimbledon 2000.......he was so exhausted that he did not touch his tennis racket again until us open 2000 that year.......just swung for the fences from that slam onwards with little pre-tournament preparation.......
he was very motivated all through 98, 99 and 2000 to somehow get that emerson record, which is all he ever cared to achieve in tennis.......every year from 98 he had to make sure that he prepared his ground and placed himself in a great position to take care of wimbledon which was his major strength.......he simply could not afford to have a go at the french because the surface demanded an entirely different skill and any attempts at doing that would have his game corrupted horribly for wimbledon.......he had to swallow all the harsh criticism for his clay negligence, stay patient and collect his title every year.......
all that took a toll on his mind and he cried for the first time in career after his 13th slam win......
And I would argue that Sampras was much closer to his past best than Federer was to his future best. So I think the match is very telling.
Separate names with a comma.