How would Federer do in the 90's?

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

  1. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,112
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    I'm talking about February 2005, during the Buenos Aires tournament, the last time that Gaudio beat Nadal. Gaudio was a top 10 player, while Nadal was barely top 50.
     
  2. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    Pete's serve broke down very often on clay, against far lesser players than Nadal. For what's it's worth, I don't think he'd even be making the Finals or the later stages for that matter, to play Nadal a whole lot. So in short, you need to figure out what the hell you're talking about.
     
  3. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    Nadal had already beaten Fed on hard at that point in 2004 when Fed won 3 slams. Everyone knew how amazing Nadal was.
     
  4. ultradr

    ultradr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    3,470
    If Federer was dropped in 90's by time machine, competing against ikes of Sampras
    and Agassi, his best slam would be

    1. French Open
    2. Australian Open
     
  5. ultradr

    ultradr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    3,470
    But for some reasons (probably better backhand?), other players were able to
    do it more regularly.
     
  6. SLD76

    SLD76 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    9,792
    Location:
    Minneapolis, North of the Wall
    Pete never even made a FO semi. And it wasn't like he he was stopped every time by a courier, brugera, muster or kuerten either. No way in heck would he "with ease" hold serve against nadal, roflmao.
     
  7. SLD76

    SLD76 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    9,792
    Location:
    Minneapolis, North of the Wall
    Guys who were able to do that are 1) fairly tall guys with big two handers I.e. tsonga, berdych, rosol, soderling, delpo, djokervic, davydenko(on hc)

    Most of his shock losses have been on hc as well be it fast or slow.
     
  8. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,658
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    He made one FO semi.
     
  9. SLD76

    SLD76 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    9,792
    Location:
    Minneapolis, North of the Wall
    My mistake. I thought he never got past qf.

    Who'd he lose to in that semi?
     
  10. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789

    Yes but this is my point, Sampras would be at the net most of the time. He'd hit a return as hard as he could and go in. His attitude was that he was always going to hold serve, so he just had to win 4 points in a row once on return, or 2 when it mattered in the tie break. He wouldn't say "my backhand's being destroyed, oh well! I won't change anything and I'll accept the loss".

    This is how you win 1-2 matches out of ten against a player who would beat you 10 times out if ten normally. It's a last resort, but it does work.
     
  11. President

    President Legend

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,988
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    When was the last time anyone beat Nadal on a clay court with this extreme ball bashing tactic? Don't say Soderling, his groundstrokes were a lot bigger than Sampras on both sides (especially the backhand) and he was more consistent as well and had more mph on the serve to cut through a clay court. Isner's serve is much better on clay than Sampras' and he played Nadal in the first round when he was in terrible form that clay season. And he STILL lost.
     
  12. Sid_Vicious

    Sid_Vicious G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Messages:
    11,681
    Location:
    In The City
    Pete lost to Kafelnikov, the eventual champion, in straight sets 6-7 0-6 2-6.



    Edit: I was looking at Pete's playing activity for 1996 and it is hilarious how little he gave a fudge about clay. After Miami, he played 2 additional HC tournaments in China and Japan (won both of them). Then he lost both of his matches at World team tennis and then reached the SF of RG.
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2013
  13. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    Nobody plays like that anymore.
     
  14. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,786
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and ┼╝eberka
    I would say:

    1)AO - nobody would challenge him there besides Agassi in 1995 and Sampras in 1994. A medium paced hard court would suit Federer's game perfectly.
    2)US - I can see Federer sharing the US Opens with Sampras but Federer winning more in the end thx to his consistency
    3)Wimbledon - dead even with Sampras/Federer, maybe a slight advantage for Samrpas but not much.
    4)FO - let's not kid ourselves, in this or any other era the FO would be Federer's worst slam, he would surely win more than 1 in the 90's, though.
     
  15. shakes1975

    shakes1975 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    741
    Interesting. I can watch tennis too, and I think Sampras was definitely a better fast-court player than Fed is. Much better serve (esp. 2nd) - in "cruise" mode and in clutch situations, much better overall net game - forward movement, footwork, racquet preparation+control on the volley, anticipation, better range on the OH (vital for a net rusher). Fed is better from the baseline overall, but, as Sampras has shown numerous times against Agassi/Courier, that for a few clutch points, he can beat a great baseliner from the baseline too. I don't see any reason why he cannot do the same to Fed. Absolutely none.

    See this way. From 1990-2002, at the USO, Agassi NEVER won more than a set in a match. Agassi, in 2004, at 34 yrs was good enough to take Fed to 5 sets. And in 2005, with a sciatica ridden back, was very close to going 2-1 up in sets (thanks to a net cord that set up a Fed break back in that crucial 7th game in the 3rd set).
     
  16. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    10,866
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    All the losses he's had on clay to journeyman seem to tell a different story. If Sampras was so good, why didn't he adapt when he was losing those matches, and badly at that?

    Just give it a rest. Nobody is buying what you're selling, and 90's clay is not here to pump your tires.
     
  17. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    I always wished Nadal and Bruguera could have met at a RG final with both at their peak...of course, it is a wishful thinking since both belong to completely different eras and Bruguera is about 15 yrs older...
     
  18. SLD76

    SLD76 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    9,792
    Location:
    Minneapolis, North of the Wall
    Ummm...rosol?
     
  19. SLD76

    SLD76 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    9,792
    Location:
    Minneapolis, North of the Wall

    And yet hewitt owned pete and fed owns hewitt.
     
  20. SLD76

    SLD76 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    9,792
    Location:
    Minneapolis, North of the Wall
    Yeah, I think pete knew the red stuff was jsut not his deal
     
  21. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    Hewitt owned Fed for a long time too.
     
  22. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    Look at his record before his coach died. In 5 years he reached 3 QF's and a semi final at the French, with wins against Courier and Brugera. and won Rome. There is no debate whatsoever that when Sampras was motivated he was a fine clay courter.
     
  23. SLD76

    SLD76 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    9,792
    Location:
    Minneapolis, North of the Wall
    He owned fed til 2004. So let's see..4 years or so of ownage vs nearly 10
     
  24. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    What? I think you need to do your sums. 10 years before Sampras retired was 1992 when Hewitt was around 10 years old.
     
  25. SLD76

    SLD76 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    9,792
    Location:
    Minneapolis, North of the Wall
    Umm ok, a burnt out courier and a brugera coming off a major injury.

    I know this isn't the first time someone pointed that out to you
     
  26. SLD76

    SLD76 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    9,792
    Location:
    Minneapolis, North of the Wall
    Ummmmmm I was comparing the amt of time hewitt owned fed vs the other way round.
     
  27. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    You can make excuses but he beat big names and he reach 3 qf's and a sf and won Rome. That's better than Ferrer, Almagro and Robredo.
     
  28. SLD76

    SLD76 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    9,792
    Location:
    Minneapolis, North of the Wall
    Those aren't excuses they are facts.

    Even pete himself would probably tell you those weren't the same players in peak or even decent form when he beat them
     
  29. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    10,866
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    Did he WIN the French Open? Did he have too many embarrassing losses on clay to guys he never should have lost to? There are your answers. In short, Sampras was a terrible clay courter for a top player, and as such would not beat an injured Nadal much less a healthy one at RG. His record would be worse than Federer's or Djokovic's is. That much is clear based on the FACTS we have.
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2013
  30. SLD76

    SLD76 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    9,792
    Location:
    Minneapolis, North of the Wall

    Put ferrer almagro and robredo in the 90's and pete probably never wins rome.

    Its hard to win clay titles in the fedal and now fedalovic era
     
  31. SLD76

    SLD76 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    9,792
    Location:
    Minneapolis, North of the Wall
    Oh and since beating "big names" is all that matters, a guess a victory on hc over hewitt or safin in 2008 is the same as beating them in '99 or 2000?
     
  32. shakes1975

    shakes1975 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    741
    Hewitt owned Sampras at the USO as much as Djok owns Fed 2010+.
     
  33. Bobby Jr

    Bobby Jr Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,391
    Yeah, as SLD76 has already posted in reply - your use of logic is spurious at best. You can bake it however you want, picking and choosing disparate elements of their games in side-by-side comparisons, but the fact is Federer is a superior player to Sampras - a fact evident by most people who understand the game well - so it stands to reason he would do better than Sampras did in the 90s.

    You point out the sets Agassi got vs Federer at the USO and the lack of sets he got vs Sampras.... that's ultimately flawed. By the same flawed logic Sergi Bruguera, Richard Krajicek and Andy Roddick are better than Sampras too. Yet their achievements combined don't even come close to Sampras's.
     
  34. shakes1975

    shakes1975 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    741
    There is no such fact. Both won 7 Wims and 5 USOs. Objectively, the only fact is they are equal in terms of accomplishment in those 2 slams. So, the comparision is subjective. Subjectively, my opinion is as valid as yours or any "celebrity" opinion that you want to hang your hat on. I've watched and played tennis for long enough to "see" who is a superior player to whom. And I "understand" the game pretty well, thank you.

    And, no, it doesn't stand to reason that Fed would do better than Sampras in the '90's. His inability to *ever* master the S/V game - either during his 1998-2003 avatar, or during his 2004+ avatar, convinces me otherwise.

    Well, Agassi played both and did better against Fed when he was quite older (and slower), than he did against Sampras. Bruguera never played Sampras at the USO, Krajicek played and lost, Roddick played and lost. So I don't think you are making a forcing point.
     
  35. Overdrive

    Overdrive Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,301
    Location:
    Garden of Gethsemane
    Hm, Federer versus Becker sounds interesting..
     
  36. President

    President Legend

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,988
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Sampras' record would suffer greatly, Federer would thrive in the 90's. He is great on both super fast and super slow courts. He would be great on ALL surfaces and win at least 3 titles at RG and 4+ at the other majors.
     
  37. Bobby Jr

    Bobby Jr Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,391
    Again, you fail to compare like with like. I am not comparing the number of titles/trophies they have lined up, I am comparing their tennis ability. Federer is plain a better player than Sampras regardless of their achievements. What part of that do you not comprehend?

    You say you have watched tennis for a long time. Clearly you don't watch tennis as closely as you think you do if you think Sampras is as good a player as Federer or, even more incredibly, actually better. Even Sampras himself has indicated in the past he thought Federer was a better player than him.

    Irrelevant.

    So you want to split it up into surface-qualified head to heads now? Hewitt owned Sampras - and on the faster hard court which Sampras previously owned.

    Similarly, Agassi was at his peak playing ability from 1999 onwards for a couple of years. His court craft is what won him the big matches, not his movement. He makes a lot of his hindered movement in his book but, during that period, he racked up some of his biggest achievements and played his best tennis. So once again the devil in the detail turns a plausible-sounding story into a bit of a truthism.

    Once and for all - a straight yes or no answer from you please: is Sampras at his peak a better player than Federer at his peak?
     
  38. West Coast Ace

    West Coast Ace G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    13,476
    Location:
    So Cal
    The Sampras Jock Sniffers are a fun bunch. Can you imagine sitting next to one on a 12 hr flight? :)

    You only have to look at one shot when talking Fed v Sampras - return of serve. Fed would get so many back into play than Sampras - thus more chances for the inevitable break.

    So, did anyone say Fed, all things being equal (e.g. he 'figured out how to win' after a few frustrating years on Tour), would clean up?
     
  39. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,212

    But Agassi believe Federer is better than Sampras.
     
  40. ultradr

    ultradr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    3,470
    Federer was never truely successful on real fast surfaces until they slowed down from 2001-2003.

    Federer, after a few years after debut, was expected to win slam soon but
    often overpowered by booming serve and volleyers and his serve wasn't as overpowering.

    His neutral game wasn't offensive enough for highly specialized game on fast surfaces of 90's.

    In 90's, his best bet is either French Open or Australian Open, just like Nadal
    or other top players in this power baseline era.
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2013
  41. ultradr

    ultradr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    3,470
    Federer's serve, the absolute best in this era, is control oriented one
    but not as overpowering as other great servers of 90's in highly specialized era.
    He would take 2-3 off Sampras's 7 at Wimbledon with his GOAT gound games
    and all court flavours. But his defense will suffer against great servers of 90's.

    Federer is great clay courter. Maybe potential to be one of the clay court greats.
    Like Borg or Lendle.
    Clay court hardly changed since 90's (unlike Wimbledon and US Open).

    He competed against Nadal, the monstrous greatest ever on clay.
    Are you kiding me here?
    He would easily take 3-4 FO if he was dropped in any era of entire tennis history.
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2013
  42. The-Champ

    The-Champ Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6,541
    Location:
    Sweden
    Federer is a lot better than all of those. Kuerten might have beaten him 97, but that's after Federer has won 7 times already (1990-96). At least 7 FO in the 90s.

    He will be splitting titles at wimbledon and USO with Pete but I think that Andre would still win USO99.
     
  43. BrooklynNY

    BrooklynNY Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,627
    This is a pretty solid post, I agree with most of this.
     
  44. Bobby Jr

    Bobby Jr Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,391
    His serve is better than most of the biggest servers of the 90s. Probably not Sampras but certainly a fair few.

    Big servers were aided considerably by the generally much faster conditions. If you put Federer in the 90s his ace count and second serve potency would go through the roof.

    Point: people love to play the "the conditions were faster back then" card looking at only one side of the coin - omitting to consider how it could positively affect -sometimes significantly - current players if they were magically transported back to the 90s. Similarly, if Sampras was playing nowdays - his service winner count would be halved, not only by speed but the significantly leaps in average serve return ability.
     
  45. Vish13

    Vish13 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2012
    Messages:
    139
    He turned pro in 1998 but he didn't make it to a final till 2001. Infact he got noticed only when he beat Pete in 2001 at Wimbledon. What performance, except beating Sampras, did he gave that people like you started expecting him to win a slam soon. By the same token, are you expecting a slam from Rosol in near future ???

    Also please STOP talking about how he fared in the 90's. He turned pro in 1998 and you have to give him at least 2-3 years to find his feet. Not everyone is a Boris Becker.
     
  46. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,795
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    For starters, he won Wimbledon for Juniors in Singles AND Doubles. He won the Orange bowl as well.

    Also, his fluid game was the first thing that springs to mind, when I recall memories from his matches back then (even when he was losing against Agassi quite comfortably). His game needed a lot of polishing and developing, but the promise was there.

    Watch his match with Sampras. Before the match the comentators were praising Federer to the high heaven (to an extend, that one had to wonder whether he or Sampras was the multiple Wimbledon champion).

    And, be careful with the comparisons. Rosol's situation and Federer's situation have NOTHING in common. It is funny, when people take one fact , that somehow they think that supports their argument out of the context and proceed to use it to construct their argument around it. A kind of self supporting ignorance.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2013
  47. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,795
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    Double post.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2013
  48. Vish13

    Vish13 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2012
    Messages:
    139
    Gud that you found it funny. I guess it doesn't take much to amuse you.You will find it even funnier that you are inadverently doing the same thing that you are falsely accusing me of doing.

    You are using achievement at Junior level to answer my question on what he achieved before winning against Sampras. Leander Paes won junior Wimbledon and US open, was number 1 in junior rankings and ended up winning only 2-3 matches in GS. Gael Monifils won AO, FO and WIM in 2004 at junior level and no GS final so far. Sounds any bell on how much to read in to Junior level achievements?

    If you re-read my post you will find that I was not even slightly suggesting that Rosol is the next Federer. I wanted to drive home the point that because Federer won against Sampras, that did not automatically marked him for greatness. His game was still far from complete at that time. ultradr is suggesting that it was not the case. He thinks that with the same game Federer started winning once the field got clear of booming serve and volleyers.
     
  49. tudwell

    tudwell Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,408
    It doesn't against Nadal. Show me one match on clay where someone beat Nadal by pounding every return and getting into net. And good luck to Sampras with that strategy as he watches Nadal make 70% first serves and pulls Sampras past the doubles alley with his slice out wide. Even his second serve is not so easy to attack. It's not the biggest, but Nadal makes up for it with spin. It's surprisingly hard to consistently attack. I can only think of Davydenko and Djokovic as players who regularly don't have trouble with it and pound it into submission, and Sampras obviously does not have as good a backhand return as they do.
     
  50. SLD76

    SLD76 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    9,792
    Location:
    Minneapolis, North of the Wall
    Ummm. I remember watching that tennis match agaisnt sampras and I remember the commentators calling him "fed express" and specifically saying that people in the tennis world viewed him as a player with alot of potential who could win a slam someday.
     

Share This Page