abmk
Bionic Poster
I'm talking about the level only. That was Stich's best RG in terms of level. Gomez is debatable I agree.
Yeah, Rafter wasn't close to prime and that loss is not excusable IMO.
I do agree on the last part - too many losses.
Slams players almost for sure don't win if someone else didn't lose one match
- Thread starter flyingforehands
- Start date
I'm talking about the level only. That was Stich's best RG in terms of level. Gomez is debatable I agree.
Yeah, Rafter wasn't close to prime and that loss is not excusable IMO.
I do agree on the last part - too many losses.
Ballmachine87
Rookie
Sampras of all people saw the second week of RG more offen than Muster. Muster heavily underperformed at RG hence giving him av"Sure title" when he got bounced by a Serve and volley player in the 4 th round is quiet the reach.
insideoutforehands
Semi-Pro
Muster would have played Pioline, Rosset, and Kafelnikov had he gotten past Stich. Where is the serve and volleyer there? So being bounced by a serve and volley player post the Stich match would be no concern, as there wasn't one.
BillKid
Hall of Fame
What if…
That’s not how sport works.
But anyway thank you, it’s still enjoyable to discuss about the good old time.
Cash in 1987 was red hot on serving and volleying and thus he was perfectly positioned to dismantle baseliners such as Wilander, Connors and Lendl. However, Becker with his big serve would have posed a different challenge altogether.
I can't see Lendl beating Gomez in RG 1990 when it's not even clear he makes the final at all. Lendl never reached the SF or final again after 1987. (By this logic Sampras wins the US Open 1999 too).
Wimbledon 1984: Becker vs. McEnroe - they would have met in the round of 16 had Becker not retired against Scanlon (provided he beat him). I am not saying 16 year old Becker beats GOATING McEnroe but it would have been the first time John experiencing and facing the soon to become strongest powerplayer for the next 6 years, especially on grass.
AO 1989: Edberg w.o. against Muster. Very likely Edberg beats Lendl in the semis and Mecir in the final.
RG 1989: As already mentioned Becker most likely beats Chang.
US Open 1990: I always thought Becker beats Sampras in the final. This is neither slump 1993 Becker nor dominating mid 90s Sampras yet.
Wimbledon 1992: I can actually see Agassi beating Sampras in a final, just this one time. Sampras wasn't still there yet, hence why he couldn't beat Goran but did 3 more times later when Goran got better too. The pressure would be on both but more so on Sampras since nobody thought Agassi would even make it that far.
US Open 1998: Sampras loses to Rafter after leading him 2:1 in sets and then gets injured. I think it's very likely he beats Philippoussis.
US Open 2001: Agassi most likely wins it, if it was't for facing Sampras.
Wimbledon 1984: Becker vs. McEnroe - they would have met in the round of 16 had Becker not retired against Scanlon (provided he beat him). I am not saying 16 year old Becker beats GOATING McEnroe but it would have been the first time John experiencing and facing the soon to become strongest powerplayer for the next 6 years, especially on grass.
AO 1989: Edberg w.o. against Muster. Very likely Edberg beats Lendl in the semis and Mecir in the final.
RG 1989: As already mentioned Becker most likely beats Chang.
US Open 1990: I always thought Becker beats Sampras in the final. This is neither slump 1993 Becker nor dominating mid 90s Sampras yet.
Wimbledon 1992: I can actually see Agassi beating Sampras in a final, just this one time. Sampras wasn't still there yet, hence why he couldn't beat Goran but did 3 more times later when Goran got better too. The pressure would be on both but more so on Sampras since nobody thought Agassi would even make it that far.
US Open 1998: Sampras loses to Rafter after leading him 2:1 in sets and then gets injured. I think it's very likely he beats Philippoussis.
US Open 2001: Agassi most likely wins it, if it was't for facing Sampras.
NAS
Hall of Fame
AO 1989 is not sure shot as Lendl was in good form, neither is us open 2001 if Agassi beat Sampras in five, then he has to face Safin and Hewitt after super Saturday, again not a sure shot thing.
Us open 1998 is obvious one if Sampras beat Rafter , of course you are getting new champ like Rafa beat Novak in 2018 semi we are getting some new one.
Point of the thread is, Match should be the one which may cause change in result not clear cut change because you can make if and but in every match where slam champion was involved
OTOH, Sampras usually got juiced when playing Agassi. Plus he had more tools to pressure Agassi’s service games than Goran - note that Agassi stayed back on serves.
insideoutforehands
Semi-Pro
Federer was not good at all (for him) at Wimbledon 2016, and around that time in general. Plus I think he had a back injury. I would definitely back Murray in that final if I had to call, despite his mostly abysmal record vs Federer in big matches.
I agree Sampras probably goes on to win all 4 of those slams you mentioned if he isn't taken out. Wimbledon 96 the most obvious, and very easily (he was taken out by the eventual pretty easy champion himself of course). But I had to wager a very good shot at all 4, he might be taken out along the way somewhere in 1 of the 4, but don't think he loses to the eventual winner in any of them.
I agree Sampras probably goes on to win all 4 of those slams you mentioned if he isn't taken out. Wimbledon 96 the most obvious, and very easily (he was taken out by the eventual pretty easy champion himself of course). But I had to wager a very good shot at all 4, he might be taken out along the way somewhere in 1 of the 4, but don't think he loses to the eventual winner in any of them.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Federer had a back injury in Madrid (had to pull out) and in Rome, and the knee injury was reaggravated at Wimbledon, meaning another knee surgery that July. He had already had knee surgery in early February 2016 after that slip in the bath incident following his loss to Djokovic at the 2016 Australian Open.
Guys, don’t forget Safin - Sampras AO 2002 4R.
No way in hell Thomas Johansson would beat Sampras in a slam final.
Others:
Wimbledon & USO 1974: What if Rosewall failed to pull off his miracle runs - now Connors would have had to face Newcombe or Smith, both of whom had Connors’ number in 1974.
Wimbledon 1992: Becker beating Agassi OR Sampras beating Ivanisevic. Either Pete or Boris would have likely nailed the title.
No way in hell Thomas Johansson would beat Sampras in a slam final.
Others:
Wimbledon & USO 1974: What if Rosewall failed to pull off his miracle runs - now Connors would have had to face Newcombe or Smith, both of whom had Connors’ number in 1974.
Wimbledon 1992: Becker beating Agassi OR Sampras beating Ivanisevic. Either Pete or Boris would have likely nailed the title.
Last edited:
insideoutforehands
Semi-Pro
Becker 100% beats old McEnroe in the semis.
I don't know if it is 100% he beats Ivanisevic in the finals. 2 years earlier he played Ivanisevic in the semis when Ivanisevic was much weaker, and Becker clearly stronger, and won in 4 sets, with a 4th set tiebreaker. 2 years later he would play Ivanisevic in the semis and be destroyed. Considering 92 was a very bad year for Becker, I wouldn't even neccessarily say he was better in 92 than 94, although Ivanisevic was probably even stronger in 94 than 92. Ivanisevic was a first time finalist though and did underperform (IMO) vs Agassi, but still wouldn't put it at a sure thing. Their career head to head is 10-9 Becker btw.
As for Sampras, yeah I think he very likely beats Agassi in the final.
Totally agree on Sampras winning Australian Open 2002. His only real threat would be Haas in the semis, not Johansson in the finals. And considering Haas re injured his shoulder after the 3rd set in the semis, Sampras literally only has to win 1 of the first 3 sets in the semis anyway, so seems pretty sure there too.
I agree Connors probably does not win Wimbledon 74 if he has to play Newcombe imparticular, and possibly Smith. Despite how badly he destroyed Rosewall (who beat both) in the final. Don't know if it I would put it at 100%, as Newcombe had to play super hard and well to beat Connors on his own home turf in Australia 75, but Connors would still have a tough task beating either.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
100%? When they met at the 1992 Australian Open, where Becker was the reigning champion, McEnroe rolled back the years and beat Becker 6-4, 6-3, 7-5.
insideoutforehands
Semi-Pro
Yes but he was garbage vs Agassi in the semis, and this is grass, not a slow hard court. I still stand by what I said. OK move it to 90% but still very likely. The hypothetical final vs Ivanisevic is quite 50-50 though IMO.
Their H2H was like 10-6 until after 1996, then Goran won all of their last matches. But, Becker had clear advantage in final matches. Likely Goran would bungle his first final.
The impact on Sampras career would be very interesting. In real life he retired by the end of that year - but now he would have had an earlier Djokovic 2018 moment.
Last edited:
What if Kuerten didn't lose to Medvedev in the 1999 French QF? He was 4-0 against Meligeni, with all matches on clay. Then, we all know how Agassi looked in the first two sets of the final before turning it on and Medvedev capitulating. With Kuerten's experience winning the 1997 French final, I don't see him losing a two set lead, assuming a similar start.
insideoutforehands
Semi-Pro
100% agree there. Don't see Agassi beating Kuerten on clay at all. I don't care that he beat him at Wimbledon in straight sets (grass, which is practically cows land for Kuerten, he did well to be in the quarters) weeks later.
HBK4life
Hall of Fame
I don’t think people saw him beating the defending champion but he did. Not saying you are wrong but something magically touched Agassi in that tournament.
insideoutforehands
Semi-Pro
Kuerten of 99-2001 >>> any version of Moya on clay.
Agassi was also much better in the round of 16 match vs Moya (even her slightly slow start in that was miles ahead of his first 2 sets in the final) than the final too. And lastly the crowd got into it and clearly unnerved Moya, and his level dropped significantly. Kuerten has never been the type who is impacted negatively by crowds ever. I also gave Agassi a real chance before that match, something like 35-40%, still was picking him to lose as you can tell by my sub 50% number, but that is much more than I would have given him going into the hypothetical final vs Kuerten who was having a great year on clay this year.
I see your point, though and I guess anything is possible, but can't see Agassi with the same awful 2 sets he played in the actual final, beating Kuerten on clay. It wasn't a windy day like the quarters so Kuerten would not play half as badly as he did in his quarter final vs Medvedev, who btw played much better overall that day too (taking into account the entire match) than he did in the final.
abmk
Bionic Poster
oh, it was pretty windy in the first 2 sets of the RG 99 final. That's big part of why Agassi was struggling. But Andrei Medvedev was playing like it was almost nothing, crazy stuff.
insideoutforehands
Semi-Pro
Hmm ok, I had forgotten that I guess. I do remember the quarter final being quite windy and it badly affecting Kuerten. Medvedev was extrremely sharp, so is obviously not affected by wind one bit, and the first 2 sets of the final would indicate that as well. I guess he is unlucky the wind died down in the final and removed his advantage.
abmk
Bionic Poster
yes.
But then Agassi was the one who talked Medvedev out of retirement a few weeks ago. Imagine if he had got beat by him in the RG 99 final. That would have have hurt.
insideoutforehands
Semi-Pro
I loved the spirit of both guys in that match. It was a hard match, as Medvedev coming back to tennis as a former promising/much hyped young star who fell off, and everyone assumed them would win a slam at some point (was even given a good shot at winning RG 94 going in), and winning would have been incredible. But most wanted to see Agassi have that incredible completion of his Career Grand Slam at that point, after sinking to the depths in 97, and starting a big comeback in 98. You wanted to see both win so much, and hated to see either lose. Medvedev was such a gracious loser though, in what must have been a painful defeat after crushing the first 2 sets. And Agassi was a very gracious winner.
