How would Federer do in the 90's?

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

  1. Netspirit

    Netspirit Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,226
    Location:
    Snoqualmie, WA
    Federer would do well because he adapts well. S&V or baseline, slow hard or blue clay, 5 or 3 sets, beginning or end of season, Hewitt or Karlovic - he does everything well because of his adaptability and versatility, technical, tactical and athletic talent.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2013
  2. TennisLovaLova

    TennisLovaLova Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    3,048
    Nobody mentions this: until the rise of the new generation (djoko muzza rafa) and except maybe a few players such as Marat Safin, Federer always outpowered his opponents with his game, maybe because he was taller and physically fitter (than hewitt, ferrero etc)
    In the 90's he would have won at least 3 YGS
     
  3. TennisLovaLova

    TennisLovaLova Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    3,048
    + watch the ao final vs safin and the way fed used to return
    He would have had no problem with 90's fast service surfaces
     
  4. Bobby Jr

    Bobby Jr Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,319
    Not wrong. Sampras was a specialist on faster hard courts so, by your logic, on that surface at least he should have had fewer credible competitors compared to the current tour. On clay he may have been harder done by but on faster courts he surely benefited more often than not.

    Regardless, with average results he stood at the top of the rankings, something which hasn't happened for over a decade.

    I did not. Picked the year which perfectly demonstrates the extreme of the argument - a year in which Sampras was not remotely dominant in any way and yet still walked away as the year end #1. He was just aided by the fact the no-one else stepped up either.
     
  5. Vish13

    Vish13 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2012
    Messages:
    135
    I agree with the homogenized surface thing. To say that many people won means an era is competitive is also correct. But does that automatically mean the players playing in a much more competitive era are better than players playing in a so called less competitive era? I am afraid that's where you are missing the point.

    There's a counter argument to homogenized theory benefitting a player. Take Sampras' example. He could remain number 1 without winning much because as you said, there were so many different specialists that points used to get distributed among many players. Which meant that Sampras domination on grass and hard court would see him comfortably hold on to number one rankings longer. It didn't matter if he was sort of rubbish on clay. Or in other words he didn't had to perform well throughout the year and could concentrate only on his strengths.

    Take Nadal's example now. Majority believes him to be the greatest clay courter of all time. So it is fair to assume that he would have dominated the clay season in 90's as well. With the other titles (outside clay) being distributed equally (because of many different specialist), we would have seen Nadal remain #1 for a much longer time than he has done in this era. He would be raking sufficient points winning FO and clay masters season after season (much like Muster did once). So a person who remained pre-dominantly a #2 through out his career, becomes a pre-dominantly #1 in your supposedly tougher era.

    To argue against the fact that there was even competition in 90s is foolish. Equally foolish is to use this fact to prove that Federer, Nadal and Djokovich have had it easy.
     
  6. Vish13

    Vish13 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2012
    Messages:
    135
    Did I read it correctly that Nadal has won 11 GS, so far, only because of his top spin?? :confused:
     
  7. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,090
    That's what 90's Clay implied.

    PS: It's nice to see so many people considering the 2000-2007 a very strong era for a change, especially from someone like 90's Clay.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2013
  8. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,515
    Location:
    Australia
    Federer would take prime Sampras on hardcourt and clay, but would most times lose to him on grass.
     
  9. tipsa...don'tlikehim!

    tipsa...don'tlikehim! G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Messages:
    17,661
    I don't know why everybody is discussing this question because the answer has been given by Agassi.

    He said Fed was the best player he ever had to face in his whole career.

    I think that sums up all.
     
  10. moonballs

    moonballs Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,925
    Slam-less Solderling can already deny 1 of Nadal's titles; Guga Kuerten should have done more damage than just 1 or 2. The big question is the match up, who will have a weapon that can exploit the opponents relative weakness.
     
  11. TennisLovaLova

    TennisLovaLova Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    3,048
    of course, the way this is depicted in Agassi's book "Open" is amazing
    massive respect for Agassi admitting that Federer is the GOAT
     
  12. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    Why massive respect? Agassi knows he is no GOAT contender so it's easy for him to admit that Fed is the GOAT.

    It must have been harder for Sampras, Borg and Laver to admit it.
     
  13. spinovic

    spinovic Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2013
    Messages:
    4,606
    Did you even read my post?

    Sampras won a slam with a different style? Really? :)

    The only thing you forgot to add in your post was a "baa-baa". Talk about sheep.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2013
  14. tipsa...don'tlikehim!

    tipsa...don'tlikehim! G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Messages:
    17,661
    So you think Agassi is biased because he doesn't like Sampras ?
     
  15. spinovic

    spinovic Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2013
    Messages:
    4,606
    Nice jump there - from "bringing it" to "in his prime". How did you make that connection from what I posted. I'm especially interested in how the part where I said "neither guy was at their peak" fits into the equation?

    You guys.

    The point is - Sampras could still play at a level capable of winning slams. Federer had yet to prove he could do that. The logical conclusion, I believe, would be to think that the guy closest to his peak, would be the guy still competing for, and winning slams, vs. the guy who was two years away from winning his first. You may draw a different conclusion. Happens all the time.

    The Big Bang Theory basically says that nothing condensed itself super tight, then got hot and exploded and made everything in the universe. That sounds ridiculous to me, since I've never seen "nothing" do anything. But hey, some people believe it.
     
  16. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    20,988
    Even Sampras, Borg and Laver themselves have anointed Federer is the greatest.
     
  17. Marty Cintron

    Marty Cintron Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2013
    Messages:
    749
    Location:
    France
  18. Start da Game

    Start da Game Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2010
    Messages:
    956
    in what world was sampras a hardcourt specialist? he was an out and out grasscourt serve and volley specialist, who played mixed all court tennis on other surfaces.......

    if we could judge based on just results and numbers, djokovic would be greater than ivanisevic, rafter and henman on grass.......

    again, what we see as dominance today is achieved at the cost of losing diversity in surfaces and depth of competition across various surfaces.......we have to level the field and make comparisons.......
     
  19. 6-1 6-3 6-0

    6-1 6-3 6-0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2012
    Messages:
    4,657
    federer already played in the 1990s, and accomplished nothing until 2003. So federer would win nothing in the 90s, and Sampras would be the dominant one. :p
     
  20. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,260
    OP: Federer would be overwhelmed. His game only worked because he's faced a generation (majority) unlike any before: born of a conscious program to produced the opposite of the all-courters and/or serve and volleying players--all to "slow down" the game from that of the 1980s/90s.

    With the exception of unique specimens such as Nadal and Djokovic (not the "grinder" of Federer fanatics' fantasties) most are such court-ignorant baseliners, that Federer was able to run over the "competition." In the 90's he would face not only the well known greats of grass and hardcourts, but so-called "clay courters" able to play other surfaces well, with numerousl players all suited to playing more than one style. Federer only having an answer for baseline-obsessed grinders would not be as sufficient in the 1990s.

    His majors count? I estimate 6. 7 if he's really lucky.
     
  21. Marty Cintron

    Marty Cintron Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2013
    Messages:
    749
    Location:
    France
    6-1 6-3 6-0, the score of Roland Garros 2008. :p
     
  22. Start da Game

    Start da Game Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2010
    Messages:
    956
    agreed let's assume nadal sweeps everything like usual on clay in the 90s.......but you forget that you are still making a comparison of rafa's #2 rank with someone's #1 rank from this era whose rank is clearly because of benefiting of homogenization.......so in that case, yes nadal would be ranked no.1 for most seasons and that is far more worth than federer's "homogenized surfaces" boosted ranking.......in that case it would merely be nadal's greatness to hold on to all the points on his surface, just like how it was sampras's greatness to hold onto to his points and also gain some ground on other surfaces.......i won't deny that federer would have done the same with grass but it's ridiculous to make arguments based on numbers from THIS ERA......

    that's why i said a no. of times before that federer benefited the most from homogenization of surfaces.......no other way would he have gained so much ground on grass, hardcourts and clay every year........it is due to the fact that all the surfaces played similarly is why he succeeded so much.......

    and then we ASSUME sampras, a terrific baseliner in the beginning of his career, wouldn't have adjusted in this era of grinders and baseliners.......based on what exactly are we making any conclusions here? on his clay statistics of 90s.......see how idiotic that is......
     
  23. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,699
    Location:
    U.S
    lol, what a load of cr*p.

    safin, nalbandian and tsonga are more all-court players than nadal and djokovic ....

    federer's game worked because he was that good ... His returning/passing was good enough to overcome the last of good Snvers in sampras, henman , scud and ancic as well ...

    let's see the so called incredible greats in the 90s - kafelnikov reaching #1 , suffering 7 losses in a row, rios reaching #1, rafter not even having a season better than #3 ranked ferrero in 2003 , agassi missing in action from 96-98 , goran the headcase being sampras' main competitor at wimbledon...yeah, right ...( don't bring in becker and make me laugh, becker was clearly past his best on grass by the time he met sampras there, 8 years after he had first won wimbledon )

    face it, federer is better and more versatile than any other player, including your boy laver. Deal with it.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2013
  24. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    20,988
    At least 18 slams. The competition was not as strong as 2003- preseent, especially from 1996- 2002. There's a reason why Kafelnikov, Rios, Moya, Rafter were the worst #1 ranked players.
     
  25. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,699
    Location:
    U.S
    the bold part is downright hilarious.

    so nadal dominating clay ( one surface ) is more impressive than federer dominating across all surfaces to a slightly lesser extent ( though differences have reduced ) ?

    HA HA HA HA HA HA

    oh jeez, so rafa didn't benefit from the wimbledon slowing down ? other courts slowing down ? he might not have won wimbledon or the USO in the 90s .... obviously no career slam in the 90s , duh ...

    federer OTOH could've won the career slam in any era .... in fact he'd win multiple majors at every venue

    yes, because sampras' game wasn't based on patience. He's still hold his ground, but he'd do worse from the baseline than what he did in his era
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2013
  26. Start da Game

    Start da Game Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2010
    Messages:
    956
    there are factual evidences of federer's weaknesses on fast surfaces of the early 2000s and yet we see fedlovers putting up non-factual made-up theories of how sampras would have struggled on slow surfaces based on his clay statistics of 90s.......the concept of specialists is alien to them.......

    federer (and nadal to some extent) was the very reason why ATP removed carpets from the tour.......just look at his poor record on carpets......players like henman, enqvist had already taken him out in some finals played on carpet before 2003.......he also lost a lot before finals on carpets.......when nalbandian took him out in 2005 final, fed had enough with carpets and that defeat was already too much for his 6-slams heavy ego to take.......that's it, carpets were soon after removed forever from the tour.......
     
  27. Start da Game

    Start da Game Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2010
    Messages:
    956
    @abmk

    never in any post did i say that nadal din't benefit from homogenization......they all did......

    regarding sampras, what you see as "impatience" is a result of learning, training and playing in that era.......making conclusions about him wrt this era based on what you see from that era is not logical.......
     
  28. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,699
    Location:
    U.S

    you mean weaknesses in matches like these ?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUnpN1Vh0WA

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=angbTaqDgaQ

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgDncDs2h5o

    face it, fact is federer was just inconsistent then, he had bad losses everywhere, there was absolutely no particular weakness on fast sufaces . His first title was indoors in Milan in 2001

    his game is perfectly suited for medium fast to fast low bouncing surfaces ...

    total piece of bullsh*t.

    federer had injury problems and had brace on his ankle. He had barely recovered from an injury that forced him to skip madrid and paris that year.

    even injured he was still able to stretch nalbandian and come back from 0-4 in the final set ..

    but you don't have a clue about all that, do you ?

    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 ....
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2013
  29. mattennis

    mattennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,093
    In fact only the very top-2 or top-3 players benefit from the homogenization of conditions AND styles, only the best and second best will have their statistics totally inflated.

    Actually players from nº6-nº10 and beyond get penalized in homogeneous conditions (and styles) and their statistics will be worse than the nº6-nº10 (and beyond) players from a totally polarized era.

    That is why it is retarded to "speculate" the numbers a player from this era would have in a totally different previous era, based on his numbers in this era.

    The funny thing is that 95% of people here know perfectly well that it is retarded, but for some reason they find it funny to go on and on and on with this absurdity.
     
  30. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,699
    Location:
    U.S
    like I said, he benefited far more than federer. federer would've won the career slam for example in any era. nadal wouldn't .....

    there is no excuse for his poor performances on clay ( for an all time great ) . winning RG was one his main goals and he failed miserably there for an ATG ...

    even in that era, you had quite a few players playing with patience, eg. chang, muster, bruguera, courier etc

    out of all the greats in the open era ( exclusively) - connors, borg, mac, lendl, wilander, becker, edberg, sampras, agassi, federer, nadal, djokovic .... with the exception of becker on clay, sampras was the worst on his worst surface

    before yoiu start with the variety excuse for sampras, it wasn't just the "variety" of the 90s and before ; borg did well on his worst surface - fast HC at flushing meadows, so did lendl at wimbledon, mac was terrific in 84 RG, but was stopped by lendl , edberg reached RG final in 89 and was close to winning it etc etc ...
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2013
  31. mattennis

    mattennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,093
    It is much more probable that, for example, if Federer and Lendl had been born the other way around, Federer would have achieved more or less what Lendl did in the 80s, and Lendl would have achieved more or less what Federer did in the 00s.

    Conditions determine GREATLY if the total GS are more or less spread among more or less players, and the statistics the top players will have.
     
  32. Fedex

    Fedex Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,634
    Location:
    Dundee
    Federer would excel in any era even ancient Greece with Achilles, Heracles and Hermes to contend with.
     
  33. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,699
    Location:
    U.S
    umm, no , for starters federer is lendl V 2.0 .... he's more comfortable on grass than lendl ever was , has a higher gear and is just more clutch
     
  34. mattennis

    mattennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,093
    Again, you are comparing Federer FROM THE 00s to Lendl FROM THE 80s.

    If they had been born the other way around (Federer playing in the 80s and Lendl in the 00s) you (and many other posters) would be saying exactly the same thing, but reversed: "Lendl is Federer2.0, Lendl is just too good, Lendl and the rest of top players from the 00s would **** Federer and all his peers from the 80s,...."

    It's been like that decade after decade, and it will happen again the next decade, and the next one....
     
  35. mattennis

    mattennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,093
    In fact it is already happening, I heard some boys in my club talking about how Djokovic is, OBVIOUSLY, much better than Federer, but Federer played in a weak era.

    Some posters here are saying basically the same, and Djokovic is only 6 years younger than Federer.

    Wait 10 more years and you will see how history repeats again and again and again...
     
  36. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,699
    Location:
    U.S
    not even close to reality . As far as I am concerned , I wouldn't say federer is far better than laver or borg or sampras overall for example , but lendl , yes ....

    my opinion doesn't have to do with every generation improves blah blah blah ... I rate laver clearly over sampras for example ....

    lendl failed far too many times to be in a serious GOAT conversation - his meltdown in the USO 83 final, poor performance in AO 83 final, loss to chang in 89 RG , not even getting a set in the 86 and 87 finals vs becker/cash, failing on the grass of AO that suited him ( & wilander who won there ) more than at wimbledon ...
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2013
  37. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,260
    You set the tone of your reply with a flame. This makes it easy to pick your post apart as defensive nonsense.

    Let's get this going"

    Was wasted potential. We are not rewriting history, so the results of his game remain where they are.

    A hack.

    What you fail to understand is that each on your list are irrelevant, as Djokovic and Nadal's basic takents / ability to adapt lifts both far above the skills of the likes of Nalbandian, Tsonga and lost potential Safin. The fact that you even mention two of the three (weak or weak minded players) illustrates just how few and far between all courters are in this era.

    Playing old Sampras hurts your argument. Federer would be utterly outclassed by top form Sampras. There's no comparison--no weapon to save Federer.

    You want to avoid Becker because his skill were still formidable--far more than a guy who got lucky playing a legion of grinder/baseliners.

    How difficult that must be to play people who refuse to move anywhere near the net.

    Frightening Wonder Talents.

    You are drunk on historically unsubstantiated fantasy. Laver won the Grand Slam--the master accomplishment of the sport. The level of the greatest. Federer could not on his "best" day (whenever that occured).

    Live with it.
     
  38. mattennis

    mattennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,093
    Because masses are stupid, as I said, it is already happening. Many young people (and even posters here) already think Federer was nothing special, that Djokovic and Nadal are much better but both have been unlucky to be from the same age and kill each other chances of having greater numbers.

    As I said, this type of absurd thinking will grow and spread as the time goes by...

    It has happened in each decade, and it only shows you how retarded the masses are.

    There is NO WAY of knowing how the achievements of two great players (from different eras) would have been had they been born the other way around.
     
  39. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,699
    Location:
    U.S
    still better results than anyone in the sampras' era than sampras/agassi/courier ...


    in your la la land ...


    you were talking about so called "all-court" skills which is why I mentioned those guys .... of course overall nadal and djokovic are far better players than safin, nalbandian and tsonga ....

    eventually as time goes, on djokovic will in one strange way strengthen federer's case as past his prime federer was able to beat him in a major in 2011 using his variety and come very close in another, yet prime nadal couldn't come close in 2 major encounters ... in fact only got close in 1 encounters out of 6 in 2011 ...... showcasing the matchup angle again .....(as was the case for federer vs nadal )

    also let us know which of the sampras era all-courters were that consistent , injury free and mentally strong ?

    stich ? mentally fragile and had injury and focus problems ...

    krajicek ? perenially injured. The one time he was fit and in roaring form at wimbledon, he beat sampras in straights

    becker ? only consistently good indoors in sampras' time ...

    ivanisevic ? the greatest midget of them mentally ...didn't do much on HC or clay ....

    rafter ? very inconsistent, late bloomer and had his injury problems ... only won a grand total of 11 titles .........


    jeez , how on earth does a pretty young federer who had only reached one slam QF before the match beating 4 time defending champion at wimbledon hurt my argument ?

    duh, actually, there are plenty : the serve , the forehand , backhand variety, movement, excellent returning and passing skills , pretty good net skills.......... as he showcased in their actual match ...

    federer would have the edge vs sampras on any surface and I repeat any ( edge is less on grass, medium-fast HC, indoors though )

    again, this is a load of cr*p. becker was formidable consistently only indoors in the sampras era.

    he broke sampras ZERO times in 3 encounters at wimbledon in the 90s

    had very few good runs off indoors - the AO in 96, wimbledon 95 semi vs agassi etc that's it

    this was NOT peak becker of the mid-80s or early 90s ( apart from indoors )

    and laver couldn't come close to 5 consecutive wimbledons and 5 USOs and 23 major semis in a row ( in fact got beaten by drysdale in 68 USO in 4R, an year before he accomplished his GS )
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2013
  40. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,699
    Location:
    U.S
    yes and no ... it happens for the first few years ...

    but then slowly realization begins to sink in and they realize/re-cognize how truly great the player was ...
     
  41. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,742
    I would have to disagree. And I think so would Sampras.
     
  42. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,699
    Location:
    U.S
    very kind words in reply to such a statement. Anyone with little knowledge of tennis and open eyes/mind would realize that federer has a LOT to hurt sampras with ....(reverse is also true, apart from on clay )
     
  43. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,045
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Laver did win 5 consecutive tournaments at Wimbledon that he was able to play in, and was dominant in the biggest tournaments he played in for some time. Look at his record below from 1959-1969:

    1959 Wimbledon: Runner-up
    1959 US Championships: Quarter Final Loser
    1960 Australian Championships: CHAMPION
    1960 French Championships: Round of 32 Loser
    1960 Wimbledon: Runner-up
    1960 US Championships: Runner-up
    1961 Australian Championships: Runner-up
    1961 French Championships: Semi Final Loser
    1961 Wimbledon: CHAMPION
    1961 US Championships: Runner-up
    1962 Australian Championships: CHAMPION
    1962 French Championships: CHAMPION
    1962 Wimbledon: CHAMPION
    1962 US Championships: CHAMPION

    1963 French Pro: Runner-up
    1963 Wembley Pro: Quarter Final Loser
    1963 US Pro: Runner-up
    1964 French Pro: Runner-up
    1964 Wembley Pro: CHAMPION
    1964 US Pro: CHAMPION

    1965 French Pro: Runner-up
    1965 Wembley Pro: CHAMPION
    1965 US Pro: Runner-up
    1966 French Pro: Runner-up
    1966 Wembley Pro: CHAMPION
    1966 US Pro: CHAMPION
    1967 French Pro: CHAMPION
    1967 Wembley Pro: CHAMPION
    1967 US Pro: CHAMPION
    1967 Wimbledon Pro: CHAMPION

    1968 French Open: Runner-up
    1968 Wimbledon: CHAMPION
    1968 US Open: Round of 16 Loser
    1969 Australian Open: CHAMPION
    1969 French Open: CHAMPION
    1969 Wimbledon: CHAMPION
    1969 US Open: CHAMPION
     
  44. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    I am so sure Federer would win 5 straight Wimbledons and all his other achievements if he was BANNED from playing Grand Slam tennis between ages 24 to 30, LOL!
     
  45. spinovic

    spinovic Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2013
    Messages:
    4,606
    I'm still trying to find footage of Sampras' first Grand Slam that he won playing a different style. Can't seem to find any footage of him winning slams prior to the 1990 US Open when he was in fact a teenager, but played the same S&V style he was known for. Just can't find that alleged 15th slam.
     
  46. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,260
    ambk just rattles off anti-Laver crap, and it is quite sad to speak ill of the legend if one does not know his record.
     
  47. Jake Gittes

    Jake Gittes Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    66
    Location:
    1712 Alameda
    If Laver was so great, why couldn't he win as many Majors as his contemporary, Rosewall? :)
     
  48. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    20,988
    But you're comparing apples to oranges again. The modern slams is not the same as the pro majors. No way the pro majors in the pre-open era has the weight of the modern slams with a 128 draw. The pro majors is closer in comparison to the WTF that has the top 8 players.
     
  49. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    20,988
    To win 5 straight slams in both the USO and Wimbledon in the modern day is as tough as any record/streak in all sports combined. It will stand the test of time.
     
  50. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,260
    More flames. Says much about you.

    Prove Nalbandian is worth a dime as an all court player. He's not a blip in his own era, and to even cite that hack just shows how you have to dig into the grave of worthless players to pump up Federer's so-called "foes" who were not the dominant baseliner/grinder generation.


    Then it was pointless for you to mention insignifcant players as a representation of all-courters, as it only makes Federer's competition appear weak(er).


    The same Stich and Krajicek who both have a major next to their names, yet what is the majors record of the hack Nalbandian you defend? Tsonga? How about Tipsarevic? (i'm laughing just mentioning that loser) Ferrer? Cilic? Isner? I could go on, but the loser capacity is at maximum.

    I laugh at your selective memory. I also notice how Edberg and Courier just slip your mind while ranting about your limp "god" Federer.

    This from the guy who supports an era allowing that towering mental and talent force nicknamed "Tipsy" to be considered a "top" player. Nice comedy routine, guy.




    jeez , how on earth does a pretty young federer[/quote]

    "pretty?"

    Your wheels just shot out from under the car of your mind.
     

Share This Page