How would Federer do in the 90's?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Anti-Fedal, Apr 25, 2013.

  1. SLD76

    SLD76 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    9,794
    Location:
    Minneapolis, North of the Wall

    And you ignored the part of his statement where he said even though fed's s
    results up til the sampras match weren't earth shattering, the commentators were alreqdy full of high praise for his game and talent. And as I said in my post, I specifically recall the commentators remarking he had alot of talent and that it was expected/thought he could win a slam someday
     
  2. mike danny

    mike danny Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2013
    Messages:
    5,082
    oh yeah you are right. i seem to remember hewitt having to save match points in 2 tight 5 setters (sarcasm)
     
  3. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    till end of 2002 ,

    federer on carpet = 34/50 = 68%
    federer indoors = 80/114 = 70.4%

    federer overall = 158/251 = 63%

    his numbers on carpet and indoors in general were clearly better than overall ....

    his first title was indoors in Milan in 2001 ...

    his winning % on clay is 77% - even if you take out his record vs rafa (2-12), its "only" 81% ..if we put in another rival who is 7-7 vs him on clay ( i.e equal ) , it becomes 79.2%

    his HC winning % is 83 ( also consider that the HC field of today is clearly superior to the CC field )

    his grass winning % is 87%


    his game is best suited to medium-fast to fast surfaces. But you can stay rooted to your delusions otherwise.

    oh and one more thing is I call BS on the excuses for sampras' failures on clay in the 90s, talking about the differences in surfaces.

    well guess what , they were quite different in the 70s and 80s as well, didn't prevent borg from making multiple finals on fast HC, mac from having a dominant run at RG 84, edberg from reaching a final in RG 89, lendl from reaching multiple wimbledon finals.

    and finally agassi himself made multiple finals @ each of them, winning atleast once at all the 4 ...

    it was only sampras and becker who failed the most among the greats of the open era on their weakest surfaces .... - that list encompasses of connors, borg, mac, lendl, wilander, becker, edberg, sampras, agassi, federer, nadal, djokovic
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2013
  4. SLD76

    SLD76 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    9,794
    Location:
    Minneapolis, North of the Wall

    Veddy interesting.

    I guess since fed didn't win a slam til 2003, people say N oh look, fed isn't a fast court guy" what about all those USOs he racked up . As far as I know the uso was still pretty fast up til 2010.
     
  5. Vish13

    Vish13 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2012
    Messages:
    139
    Ok. I have always watched the highlights and never caught that. I take that. But I never said that he was not expected to win a slam "someday", like you have said, at that time. My contention was against the point that he was expected by tennis fraternity to win GS at the time he defeated Sampras.And he could not do so because he was unable to play the big S&Vs of the 90s. Truth is his game was not developed to that level where he could play like he did against Sampras, consistently, round after round.
     
  6. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    yes, USO was pretty fast until 2010 ... slowed down quite a bit from 2011 onwards
     
  7. SLD76

    SLD76 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    9,794
    Location:
    Minneapolis, North of the Wall
    Bollocks. No one expected him to win a slam just because he beat sampras. BEFORE the match people had him pegged as potential slam winner, the sampras match just confirmed that he was indeed the real deal. There was more expectation than before after the sampras match, but the expectation was already there before.
    Fed didn't when a slam before 2003 because his game and mentality weren't ready before, no more no less. I magine that if fed had turned pro in 1993, he probably would be winning slams by 98, if he developed the same


    How in the world were people pegging federer as a potential future slam champion if he coukdnt compete agaisnt or was mediocre or pedestrian against the contemporary competition???? Mayhaps its because his game and talent were there, but concistency and mentality were lacking????

    Please stop talking about things you don't know about. Its clear you didn't even follow tennis at the time or were too young to know.
     
  8. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,848
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    That is what happenes, when you don't think about what you are posting and what the others are responding to.

    You wrote:

    which is clearly NOT true.

    I was merely responding, that Federer got noticed earlier than that.

    It may come to you as a shock, but the experts start paying attention, when a certain player achieves something significant in the junior ranks (at least with the players that achieve something there). Hence my reference to Federer's initial success as a junior and the consequent interest on behalf of the experts.

    So, to put it as clear as it possibly can be: once a player achieves something significant as a junior he raises expectations. Although not all junior champions achieve significant things in their future careers, it is a safe thing to have such expectations, since they are (obviously) the best players in their respective age groups.

    Certainly, you haven"t watched Federer matches from that period. If you did, you would know, that he made waves in the tennis world before he beat Sampras.

    Giving Monfils as an example doesn"t exactly prove your point. The guy played to his ranking (improving all the time) and, generally, was denied titles and remarkable runs by either very experienced players or the very best (beating some of the very best along the way). His injuries also played part in his inability to fulfill his potential. And, his career is not over, so, who knows.

    You drove the point home, alright.

    Even suggesting, that Rosol's win could possibly mean the same as Federer's win, is absurd. Not because a great win doesn't mean great ability (it does), but because you have to consider everything else (age, circumstances surrounding the development of the sport, player's previous success, playing style and strengths etc.).

    Also, noone is "marked for greatness" as you put it. But the expectations towards some players are higher than towards others.

    Have you looked up Federer's results in the Majors prior to Wimbledon 2001 (obviously you haven't watched his matches back then, so that would be the next thing to do, when talking about him)?

    He reached 3 times 3rd round, once 4th round and once QF before his match with Sampras (and before he was 21). I would say, that those are some decent grounds to think of him as potential future threat in the Majors.

    Well, as far as I am concerned you are both wrong.

    Federer's game was not complete at the time he beat Sampras. Hell, it became clear, that he can improve on his game even after his peak. But, he beat Sampras with a game, which had its visible strengths (I hope, that you are not saying, that he got that game during his match with Sampras or even after that,. It would be a nonsense) and was a full package (not any serious weaknesses, relatively speaking).

    However, I was responding to your "everything or nothing" approach. By claiming, that Federer was noticed only after he beat Sampras is even further from the truth as to say, that he had the "complete package" (which is obviously not possible, because there is no such thing as complete package).
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2013
  9. ultradr

    ultradr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    3,534
    Again, 90's was highly specialized era. Specialists on slow clay, specialists on
    skidding fast surfaces.

    Federer's serve, despite best in this era, doesn't strike as one to compete well in
    90's against highly specialized players of 90's. You need overpowering serve on top
    of accuracy and varieties. Federer's 1st serve % can go south for extended period of
    time. And he tends to love slice based serves.

    Not that he would not be successful at all. I just don't think he would be as
    successfull as he's been on much slower and higher bouncing Wimbledon and US Open of now.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2013
  10. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    federer's serve, so effective in the slowed down era vs a returning bunch of hewitt, djokovic, murray, davydenko, ferrer, safin, nalbandian, nadal etc would be less effective on the faster, lower bouncing surfaces of the 90s vs an inferior bunch of returners (apart from agassi, chang, kafelnikov )

    yeah, that makes sense :roll:

    also see post #453
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2013
  11. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    lol, not at his peak .........much lesser than the likes of krajicek, goran, becker, stich ...... and yes, lesser than even sampras ( though not by much )
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2013
  12. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,239
    What are you talking about ???

    Much slow court and especially HIGH BOUNCE is the worst condition for him.
     
  13. ultradr

    ultradr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    3,534
    Nope. He was winning and would be still continuously successful.
    Just not as successful as he's done at current slower Wimbledon and US Open.

    IMHO, it is not totally unreasonable to suggest that the new slower and boucier
    conditions must have helped Federer's dominance at least a little bit, right?
     
  14. ultradr

    ultradr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    3,534
    Again this is relative term. slower and bouncier than classic grass and hard
    courts of past. Yes, quicker and less bouncy than clay.

    To me, Federer fans do not look that tolerant on any tiny hint of criticism
    of the perfect tennis god Federer who would be god-like in any conditions.
     
  15. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    see this :

    http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7378362&postcount=81



    and again , replying to this :

    you must be the one joking. federer never was close to borg on clay overall, neither was lendl btw. borg dominated clay at his peak just like rafa did. In the open era, only these 2 are equivalent of each other.

    then I'd put lendl, wilander, kuerten, federer, bruguera, courier,vilas, muster, ferrero etc on a somewhat similar level on clay


    .........

    the problem is you are mischarecterizing federer's game/strengths/weaknesses quite a bit ...
     
  16. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,848
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    I would take Federer's serve plus forehand over Sampras's any day of the week and twice on sunday. In the 90ies as well, because only good serve is not enough to dominate the game.

    Sampras didn't dominate on his serve alone.

    And variety is Federer's bread and butter. Sampras is worse than Federer in that regard.
     
  17. shakes1975

    shakes1975 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    741
    The part that I don't comprehend is how you state it like a fact, when it's not - simply because it never happened.

    And I am comparing tennis ability too. At Wim/USO, Sampras was a better player than Federer, IMO.

    No, he didn't. He admitted Fed was a greater player than him - which is true, given that Fed has eclipsed most of his achievements. He didn't admit that Fed was "better". He also said that, at his (Sampras') peak, he thought he was unbeatable. And he also said he thinks he could beat Fed. He also said, "My game is too big to be dominated by anyone".


    Hewitt did not own Sampras at Wim or USO. They played only twice in those two slams (both at the USO), and their H2H stands 1-1. I firmly believe that an additional rest day between the SF and F would've allowed Sampras to perform better.

    Well, the surfaces in the 90's were more disparate, and Wim/USO/Carpet were faster than they were now. And I was only talking about the faster surfaces. I believe that Fed would lead Sampras at the AO + FO.

    How about their (Sampras-Agassi) 2001 and 2002 USO matches ? Agassi still won only 1 set in each of those matches. My point is that Sampras, on the faster surfaces, was able to handcuff the cleanest ball-striker/returner in the modern game in a way that Fed was never able to do. I stand by my opinion that Sampras could do the same to Fed.

    IMO, on the faster surfaces, yes he was. On the slower surfaces, he wasn't. Just like between Sampras and Agassi.
     
  18. Bobby Jr

    Bobby Jr Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,445
    Exactly... the failure to comprehend how the faster playing conditions significantly flattered many players in the 90s and earlier is a common one on this board.
     
  19. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789

    And yet Sampras hit 730 aces in just 42 matches in 2002, the conditions were already slowed ("phase 1" of the slowdown where carpet was pretty much gone and Wimbledon was slow). Federer has never broken 700 even though he plays 90 matches a year. He obviously doesn't compare to Sampras, Ivanisevic, Becker, Krajicek, Rusedski etc and you know it. He doesn't even compere to great servers of his own era like Ljubijic.

    It seems, and this might sound a bit counter intuitive, that court speed doesn't matter all that much for aces, but much more so for unreturnable service winners.

    How come Agassi didn't do better against Sampras than he did against Federer at the USO? Even if we pretend Agassi didn't get any worse with age, he didn't get better. And Agassi isn't a player with some unique match up issue against either player either.

    For my money, Sampras and Federer were essentially the same player, except Sampras was much better at serving and Fed is much better at returning. Although both were highly competent in both areas.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2013
  20. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    simple :

    USO 90 - agassi was too nervous and played like a zoombie
    USO 95 - agassi had peaked too early, though he played some decent tennis
    USO 2001 - amazing close match, both players at the top of their abilities
    USO 2002 - agassi tired by the semi vs hewitt

    USO 2004 - agassi played very well, federer was slightly off, the tornado like conditions from set 4 onwards made it somewhat of a tossup. otherwise federer could've won in 4

    USO 2005 - agassi had his injury problems, but he was on a inspired run and played excellent tennis for 3 sets and then ran out of gas.

    if I had to rate the performances of agassi in these matches , I'd go :

    USO 2001 > USO 2004 > USO 95 > USO 2002 > USO 2005 > USO 1990
     
  21. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    umm, based on what ? federer's serve itself would make it much tougher for sampras to break him when compared to agassi

    secondly federer's movement is much better.

    there is no comparison whatsoever ....

    @ the bold part, are you serious ??????

    federer absolutely demolished agassi in YEC 2003 ( fast ) ( fed him a bagel , something sampras never did ) and in dubai 2005 ( medium fast )
     
  22. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    His main rivals were/are Roddick, Hewitt, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Söderling.

    Among them, who would have met more success with faster and lower boucing condition? Hewitt and Roddick could have won a few more matches. All the other would have lost a lot more matches.
     
  23. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    today I hope Messi will prove onc emore what is the biggest difference with CR.Messi is decisive in key matches and CR is unable to win them
     
  24. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    Not even Messi can save Barca today.
     
  25. Vish13

    Vish13 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2012
    Messages:
    139
    Ok grandpa .. I might not have followed tennis as well as you did, but I hope you are able to follow what you are typing? You are contradicting yourself in the two statements .. Aren't you?
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2013
  26. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    This is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have come across.
    Are you NadalAgassi by any chance? Anyway, now I'm not going to go so far as to assert that Federer has a better or equivalent level of serving as Sampras but your argument that Federer didn't touch 700 is beyond stupid.
    Federer is a different TYPE of server. He doesn't rely as much on power than the guys you listed which means his chances of getting outright aces are somewhat lesser. That does NOT make his serve weaker. His entire serve is designed to give him free points at literally half the expense of energy. And he most definitely is better than most of the guys you mentioned on that list save Sampras and Goran but Goran was anyway a headcase so it doesn't matter.

    ..and your point is?

    Huh? Why is Agassi the parameter here? And why is one match an account of all there is be considered between Federer and Sampras? Get a grip over your arguments please. First you hilariously talk about how Sampras would be "easily holding serve" ON CLAY against Nadal when he lost it against far lesser players, then you go talk about how Federer can't hit 700 aces (who cares? His serve gets the job done, that's what matters) then you proceed to compare two isolated, individual performances as if they were of a biblical character for your arguments. Seriously, man, what's wrong with you?

    Probably the only thing in your post that made sense.
     
  27. Vish13

    Vish13 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2012
    Messages:
    139
    I have no shame in accepting that you have followed the sport much much more than I ever did and have an in depth knowledge of the same. But in my opinion your above comments carry more weight because they are helping explain something which has happened.

    I do believe in marked for greatness thing and have seen it happened in sports. You are fully entitled to not agree with the same.

    Again I have not followed tennis particularly well in late 90's and early 2000's, but I am sure you will find players whose career followed the same path as Federer's before they won a slam or did something notable in them. In my opinion, from his early performances, he was marked as talent to watch for and he did not disappoint. It would wrong to suggest that he took too much time to fulfil the promise.
     
  28. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,755
    Then I guess the clay and overall records seal it.
     
  29. SLD76

    SLD76 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    9,794
    Location:
    Minneapolis, North of the Wall
    Umm I siad the same thing in 2 statements.

    Learn to read junior.

    I said fed didn't win slams before 2003 because his game and mentality weren't ready.

    In other words his consistnecy and mental focus took a while to develop

    All greats ...they don't just hit the tour and dominate, there is a learning curve, a period of adjusting and growth.

    Some take less time, some take longer, but nobody has ever just hit the tour and dominated.

    And if you don't know anything about tennis, please do us all a favor and stop talking out your backside
     
  30. Anaconda

    Anaconda Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,978
    Actually, it was only until 2007, where Federer's footwork declined (which meant a decline in ground game etc) did Federer's serve actually become more than just a 'good serve to get the point started' shot. It became a shot he could get free points with. It's the main reason he's had success from 2008 on-wards because his ground game and movement are clearly not what they once were.


    Maybe it did him a favour in terms of longevity, although he was always good at conserving energy and didn't play a physically demanding game.
     
  31. mattennis

    mattennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,234
    The Sampras from the 90s would not win RG in the current era (even if in the 90s the clay field was much stronger, with many more good claycourt players) because he would never beat Nadal in RG.

    Sampras made some good results in RG making QF in 1992, 1993 and 1994 and making SF in 1996.

    In 1992, 1993 and 1994 (in RG) he stayed back on second serves and many times on first serves too (but he also made serve-and-volley on many good first serves, depending on the rival and the day).

    In 1992 he lost 6-7 2-6 1-6 to Agassi, in 1993 he lost 3-6 6-4 1-6 4-6 to Bruguera, in 1994 he lost 4-6 7-5 4-6 4-6 to Courier.

    Close matches (the last two), but Bruguera and Courier (those years) were the best clay court players of the world and even though Sampras won a fair share of good baseline points against them in those matches, both Bruguera and Courier were just more consistent than Sampras from the baseline (Sampras made much more unforced errors than any of them).

    In 1995 Sampras lost a 5 hours five setter first round match against Gilbert Schaller, a good clay court player. Sampras played that match entirely from the baseline. He stayed back on both serves, and only went to the net in the middle of the rallies after a good shot from the baseline. I think he tried the first serve-and-volley point in the middle of the fifth set. Commentators didn't understand why he did not s-n-v on first serves during the whole match.

    Anyway, he lost a very close match, but the thing is that, even if he had won, he wouldn't win the tournament if he had to fight that hard from the baseline everytime he faced a good clay court player.

    So the next year, 1996, in the second round against Bruguera, he serve-and-volley on (almost) all first serves and also on many second serves AND he even chip-and-charged everytime he could. He won in (again) a gruelling five setter. He won in another gruelling and long five setter in the next round against Todd Martin. In the QF he faced Jim Courier and again Sampras did serve-and-volley in almost all his first serves (and stayed back in almost all his second serves), and during the baseline points he played good enough to win another gruelling five-setter. In the SF he was dead.

    I think he understood two things:

    1) He would never win the tournament playing all the time from the baseline. His best baseline game on clay was good enough to lose a close four or five setter against Bruguera or Courier or other good clay courters. And even if he won somehow, it would be a gruelling five setter that probably hindered his chances in the next match (Sampras's stamina was always a problem).

    2) If he mixed it up, as he did in 1996, if he did it perfectly he could even defeat those great clay courters, but again in very long gruellling battles, that left him dead for the next match.

    So the only chance he had to win RG was trying to win easy matches, straight sets matches with very short points.

    From 1997 on, he tried to play short points in RG, going quickly for a winner, and doing serve-and-volley on both serves (he also started to play like that on hard courts since 1998 or so). That kamikaze game obviously was a disaster, he never again reached the R16.


    So "the Sampras of the 90s" (even the "good one" from 1992 to 1996 ) would never defeat Nadal in RG. He could defeat maybe many other players (after all, the clay field in the last 8 years has been very mediocre) but not Nadal.


    I think he would lose to Nadal 10 out of 10 times.

    Another thing would be "had Sampras been born 10 years later, and played the game in a different way, with bigger racquets and poly..." that is impossible to know, but the Sampras from the 90s would never win RG against Nadal.
     
  32. mattennis

    mattennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,234
    By the way, the only two times Borg lost at RG was against Panatta.

    He played close matches against Pecci, but always won.
     
  33. shakes1975

    shakes1975 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    741
    Seals what ? That Fed has the better achievements ? I never doubted that. My whole point was if they played in the 90's, Sampras would do better than Fed at Wim/USO/YEC, while Fed would do better at the AO/FO.
     
  34. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,873
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Sampras was never that consistant at the US Open, in Federer's dominant stretch of 5 years he'd possibly only overlap with Sampras possibly a couple of times there in 95/96. Pete might win 95 vs 2005 but I think 2006 Federer takes 96. In 04, 07 and 08 Pete lost early, so Federer still likely atleast matches Pete in USO's in the 90's.
     
  35. Vish13

    Vish13 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2012
    Messages:
    139
    First you say that his game was not ready and then in the next para you say his game was there and then you say that it is the same thing. Ok sir, English not being my native language, I'll find it hard to understand how seemingly opposite sentences can mean one and the same thing.

    Problem is that you are not reading my post well. Read post #457 again. I said I agreed with you on people saying Federer would win a slam "someday". I was debating against some other "expert" on this forum who said that when he beat Sampras in 2001 he was expected to win a slam soon and that he could not until 2003 because he was unable to compete with the field of S&Vs of 90s. I said repeatedly in my post on this thread that IMO Federer game was not complete in 2001. But there are people here who are insisting on that it was still a good package.

    So please, don't jump to conclusions on people's age or start speaking on behalf of the whole forum and ask someone not to post. There's no law that forces you to read someone's comments.
     
  36. spinovic

    spinovic Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2013
    Messages:
    4,667
    Had Federer played in the '90's, tennis would have been much like its been for the past decade. Sampras and Federer would have dominated the sport in a very similar fashion as Federer and Nadal dominated from 2004-2010. During their peak years, I think its pretty likely they'd have won virtually every slam. Moving Federer up 10 years, would put he and Sampras in peak form at basically the same time. From 1994 on, they would have won almost everything. Beginning with the 1993 Wimbledon (Sampras' and Federer's first Wimbledon), here's how it could have likely gone based on both men's results:

    1993 Wimbledon - Sampras or Federer ('03 Champion)
    1993 US Open - Sampras
    1994 Australian Open - Sampras or Federer ('04 Champion)
    1994 French Open - Bruguera
    1994 Wimbledon - Sampras or Federer ('04 Champion)
    1994 US Open - Agassi or Federer ('04 Champion)
    1995 Australian Open - Agassi
    1995 French Open - Muster or Federer (lost in SF's to Nadal in '05)
    1995 Wimbledon - Sampras or Federer ('05 Champion)
    1995 US Open - Sampras or Federer ('05 Champion)
    1996 Australian Open - Becker or Federer ('06 Champion)
    1996 French Open - Kafelnikov or Federer ('06 finalist - Nadal)
    1996 Wimbledon - Krajiceck or Federer ('06 Champion)
    1996 US Open - Sampras or Federer ('06 Champion)
    1997 Australian Open - Sampras or Federer ('07 Champion)
    1997 French Open - Kuerten or Federer ('07 finalist - Nadal)
    1997 Wimbledon - Sampras or Federer ('07 Champion)
    1997 US Open - Rafter or Federer ('07 Champion)
    1998 Australian Open - Korda
    1998 French Open - Moya or Federer ('08 finalist - Nadal)
    1998 Wimbledon - Sampras
    1998 US Open - Rafter or Federer ('08 Champion)
    1999 Australian Open - Kafelnikov or Federer ('09 finalist - Nadal)
    1999 French Open - Agassi or Federer ('09 Champion)
    1999 Wimbledon - Sampras or Federer ('09 Champion)
    1999 US Open - Agassi
    2000 Australian Open - Agassi or Federer ('10 Champion)
    2000 French Open - Kuerten
    2000 Wimbledon - Sampras
    2000 US Open - Safin
    2001 Australian Open - Agassi
    2001 French Open - Kuerten or Federer (2011 finalist)
    2001 Wimbledon - Ivanisevic
    2001 US Open - Hewitt
    2002 Australian Open - Safin
    2002 French Open - Costa
    2002 Wimbledon - Hewitt or Federer (2012 champion)
    2002 US Open - Sampras

    I think their totals could easily have looked like this:

    Australian Open (9) - Sampras/Federer (5) 1994, 1996-97, 1999-00; Agassi (2) 1995, 2001; Korda (1) 1998; Safin (1) 2002

    French Open (9) - Federer (5) 1995-99; Kuerten (2) 2000-01; Bruguera (1) 1994; Costa (1) 2002

    Wimbledon (10) - Sampras/Federer (8) 1993-00, 2002; Ivanisevic (1) 2001

    US Open (10) - Sampras/Federer (7) 1993-98, 2002; Agassi (1) 1999; Safin (1) 2000; Hewitt (1) 2001


    That would begin with Federer's first slam win (2003 = 1993 Wimbledon) and end with Sampras' 2002 US Open win. 38 slams, very likely that 25 would be won by that duo. If you narrow it down to their peak years, which would span from about '93 Wimbledon to '99 US Open - it is 25 total slams with 22 of them likely being won by that duo.

    You can debate about how those 25 would be divided up, but its hard to argue that they would not have dominated the tennis world for over half the decade, IMO. Considering Federer's level of play, I cannot but assume he would have beat guys like Becker and Rafter in slam finals. Agassi and Kuerten on clay are the two best arguments for preventing wins by Federer and Sampras, but it turns out, there weren't many potential matchups during their best years.

    Make of it what you will.
     
  37. Dedans Penthouse

    Dedans Penthouse Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,079
    Location:
    Antarctica
    This from someone (I) who consider Fed to be GOAT:


    Hmmm, let's see.....Sampras is 41 years old, Fed's 31 years old...

    Who are you kidding with your 'innocently' worded thread title? Why didn't you just man up and title your disengenuous thread:

    "Fed vs. Sampras - Calling All Fanboys"



    ^^^
    I rest my case.
     
  38. mike danny

    mike danny Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2013
    Messages:
    5,082
    i was thinking. some people here were comparing how well did fed and pete do against agassi to draw conclusions about their match-up against each other. but let me give you another example.
    take federer and nadal for ex. both of them faced djokovic in 2011. nadal struggled against him not managing to beat him once but federer non only did he beat him once but was one point away form doing it twice. so you see federer did better against novak in 2011 than nadal and yet nadal still beats him. it is all about match-ups here. just because pete did better against andre does not mean that he would do the same against rog
     
  39. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,848
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    I will make it easier for you:

    1) "Mayhaps its because his game and talent were there, but concistency and mentality were lacking" (before 2003) (i.e. needed more polishing or (because they come with the rounding of the player's game) were yet to reach the necessary level).

    2) "Fed didn't when a slam before 2003 because his game and mentality weren't ready before, no more no less"

    Consider, that he is talking about the mental aspect of his game, which was underdeveloped. Mental aspect is part of someone's game, so, what he is saying is, that, while the technique and overall game style were on the necessary level other things like fitness and mental game were not.

    But, since you both engaged in a conversation about his mental game as a separate thing, he is correct, that his game (i.e. the aforementioned technical aspects) were there.

    He could have been more precise, by separating the game as technical aspects and overall game style from one side and the mental aspect (and fitness) on the other side, but, since we are adults, one is supposed to have a sense of context, when being involved in a discussion.


    Reaching the results I already showed you at the age of 19-20 are not results, from which you can conclude, that his game was a good package without considerable weaknesses?

    Are you out of your mind?

    Also, you are grasping at straws here. How do you define "soon"?

    Federer won his first Major as a 21 y o. That is hardly "someday", when you consider the span of a normal tennis career.

    And, I hope, that you are not saying, that Federer couldn't beat the best S&V in their own game.

    As much as the Sampras extreme fans would like to overlook the loss at Wimbledon, to this day remains the question, which weapon, that Sampras was known for, didn't work that day against Federer?

    The answer is simple: they all worked (Sampras was serving out of his mind that day, saving numerous BPs or equalizing games (coming from behind) with aces or unreturnables). He just met his equal in ability.

    The thing is, even if Sampras was to win that match in a tight 5 setter, it would have been a testament to Federer's ability to play on par with him with very similar game, to what Sampras had.

    I will repeat myself again, by saying, that there is no such thing as a complete game. It is all relative, and your use of this notion is done in a far too liberal/biased manner, to be considered a valid argument.

    Also, please, next time save us the inverted marks, when you write experts.

    I don't think, that this comes across as too clever or persuasive.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2013
  40. Vish13

    Vish13 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2012
    Messages:
    139
    Really, you have not followed my posts and have started explaining me something that I already know and have agreed upon in all my post on this thread. I began posting here because someone suggested that Federer should have been winning slams at the time he beat Sampras and it took him 2 more years because he was unable to handle S&V players. I fully agree with everything that is related to tennis that you have posted here.

    I am somehow getting an impression that what you think I am saying is that Federer was not competent enough to play against Sampras et. al. When I said about Federer's achievement prior to win against Sampras, that was more to counter someone who was saying that at that time Federer was ready to win slams. My point was that there were some aspect of his game that needed to be polished - like you said. He had shown promise and by started winning slams from 2003, he began fullfilling the promise. It was not "late" by any standards.

    And finally, if you have patience read somebody's posts well, you'll find them not to be so out of their minds as you think. Also you'll also find that there are some people who are trying to let other know what they think, which is incidentally why the forum is for, and not to prove to some unknowns how clever they are.
     
  41. Feddy Kruegerer

    Feddy Kruegerer Banned

    Joined:
    May 18, 2013
    Messages:
    448
    Federer wouldn't have done so well in the 90s, but I wouldn't blame him for it. After all, having a boy play tennis matches against grown men doesn't seem too fair to me.
     
  42. mike danny

    mike danny Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2013
    Messages:
    5,082
    all that i can say is that federer would never beat nadal in the 90's because nadal would not be reaching finals outside of clay
     
  43. TheNatural

    TheNatural Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,879
    His early career results under 90's like conditions gives a good idea how he would do.
     
  44. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,873
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    You mean beating Sampras at Wimbledon? I agree.
     
  45. jg153040

    jg153040 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2013
    Messages:
    11,869
    How would Fed do in the 90s? He was 15 years old. I mean had he turn pro he would've been great no doubt. No Nadal. But Fed would be just a baby so of course he wont win as much during Sampras prime. But he still wins a couple of slams.
     
  46. Feddy Kruegerer

    Feddy Kruegerer Banned

    Joined:
    May 18, 2013
    Messages:
    448
    That's a pickle of a zinger. Well done, sir. :)
     
  47. mike danny

    mike danny Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2013
    Messages:
    5,082
    He would be more prone to upsets in the 90's due to the faster conditions.

    But i still see him having 1 or 2 seasons in which he wins 3 slams.

    Also i see his chances at the FO grow exponentially without the existence of Nadal.

    If he were to compete with Sampras, they would split the W and USO titles. Pete wins 4 W, Federer wins 3. Pete wins 3 USO's, Federer wins 2. But Fed would add some more USO's in the absence of Pete.

    Overall, Pete would win 7-8 slams cimpeting with Federer while Fed wins 8-9 because he would also add 1 or 2 FO titles.

    Overall none of Roger and Pete would have the slam record if they had to compete against each other
     

Share This Page