Slams players almost for sure don't win if someone else didn't lose one match

[Mustard]

No I am not. RF was clearly the superior player even on clay. And I am Argentine and rooted for Gaudio to win the FO. Even if Coria had a shot at world number one. Back then we all thought he was going to bounce back from that defeat.

Nalbandian wasn't easy for Federer.

 

[RS]

2001 Wimbledon. Goran would lose to Andre at Wimbledon. Agassi was a nightmare for him
2001 US Open Hewitt loses in the finals to Agassi (Who was playing lights out there) if Pete didn't take him out
2003 US Open- Roddick loses to Agassi if Ferrero doesn't take him out
2022 AO Nadal obviously loses to Djokovic in the final if Djoker plays
2009 RG Soderling helped Fed win the French
1992 Wimbledon-Agassi probably loses to Pete in the finals if Goran doesn't take him out
2009 Wimbledon- Obviously Fed would get crushed by Nadal in that final if Nadal was healthy. Nadal was peaked out during that time of his career and Fed barely got through his pigeon Roddick

Can you think of anymore cases of this?

 

[tkramer15]

Exactly. Most players in the 90s had a completely different approach to the lead-up tournaments than today. Same with Gomez who lost against Muster in the Rome SF in 1990 only to beat him convincingly in the RG semi few weeks later even stating that it was stupid from Muster to go all out and show him all he had in Rome. Bruguera might appear to have been Muster’s pigeon, but him at RG was a completely different animal and we shouldn’t conclude much from their matches at minor tournaments.

I would wildly dispute the use of the term "minor tournaments," as if to create an explanation for why Bruguera lost to Muster in certain events (insinuating that Bruguera didn't try as hard as he would have at Roland Garros).

First of all, I find it impossible to compare and contrast players' mindsets. Players play to win matches, earn money and earn ranking points. Winning is their livelihood. These guys weren't mid-late career Federer, Nadal or Djokovic, all of whom absolutely prioritized the slams above all else while playing limited schedules. They weren't Sampras, Agassi, Edberg or Becker, etc. Particularly in the 1990s, with an increasingly deep and varied field and sometimes wildly disparate draws, numerous factors came together to affect the outcomes at many big tournaments.

Whatever Gomez's mindset was, it certainly didn't differentiate him much at the grand slam level. Despite a very solid career, outside of his 1990 RG title, Gomez never got past another slam quarterfinal. Of course it was arguably much easier to reach slam quarters in the early-mid '80s than it would become by the early-mid '90s.

In that 1990 RG, it's noteworthy that Gomez had an extremely comfortable draw, which included a fourth round walkover over what would've been his toughest opponent on paper, 19th-ranked Magnus Gustafsson. Muster's path to the semis wasn't incredibly tough, but he did have to beat Haarhuis, solid dirtballer Martin Jaite and then future Hall of Famer Ivanisevic in the quarters. Again, despite whatever Gomez said about his mindset at the time, his approach did not result in any other breakthroughs in the last eight of a slam before or after. Combined with Agassi's championship match wig/hair clip concerns, things simply broke right for Gomez that year.

Bruguera and Muster played similar schedules during their overlapping prime periods. Muster simply won way more. The disparity wasn't likely because of Bruguera's lack of desire to win matches or tournaments.

Muster beat Bruguera in straight sets in two Davis Cup matches, one on clay, one on indoor hard. Muster also won six straight sets over Bruguera across US Open meetings in 1994 and 1996. From late 1993 through their final meeting in the 1997 Miami final, Muster beat Bruguera nine consecutive times and won 24 of the 27 sets contested. Plenty of those sets were highly competitive, but the bottom line results were incredibly one-sided. I would never rule out any result at any tournament, but trying to explain away Bruguera's inferior results to Muster's as a lack of interest in other tournaments does not cut it. Had they met at the 1994 French, it's obviously highly possible, if not probable, that Muster wins.

 

[Mustard]

Gomez had a nemesis in Lendl, who beat him in 5 majors (3 French Open quarter finals, 1 US Open quarter final, 1 French Open second round), with Lendl leading 17-2 in their overall head-to-head. Lendl didn't play at the 1990 French Open. I think Gomez was ridiculously underrated at the 1990 French Open. An experienced veteran who had won Barcelona and Madrid, semi final loss to Muster in Rome in a very close match, then beat Muster in straight sets in the French Open semi final, yet 20-year-old Agassi was widely favoured to beat Gomez in the 1990 French Open final. Not a wise bet really.

 

[tkramer15]

not at all. Bruguera at RG was a different beast to the half-assed, non-peak effort he put into non-RG tournaments.

Many factors must coalesce for someone to win a grand slam. Even the likes of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have occasionally needed some good fortune. The 1990s were of course much more varied in terms of surfaces and styles. Player depth, particularly clay court depth, increased significantly in the mid to late '90s. Timing and circumstances were crucial. Draws at slams could be very different in terms of difficulty for seeded players.

With that said, I totally refute the notion that Bruguera made "half-assed, non peak effort" at "non-RG tournaments," as if to explain his lack of winning elsewhere while propping up his approach as superior to others who perhaps compiled more well-rounded resumes without as many deep runs at RG.

Prior to his 1993 RG title, Bruguera had compiled a 5-4 record in Paris, having lost in the fourth round to Ronald Agenor in 1989, the round of 64 to Jonas Svensson in 1990 (Bruguera lost 6-0 in the fifth after leading two sets to love), the second round in 1991 to Omar Camporese (Bruguera retired with back injury while leading two sets to one; He said he felt something while training in between in first and second round matches), and in the first round in 1992 to Lendl 6-4, 6-2, 6-1. He played virtually the same spring clay court schedule leading up to Roland Garros in those years that he would for the remainder of his career.

In the lead-up to his 1993 RG title, Bruguera played in six tournaments -- Estoril, Barcelona, Monte Carlo, Madrid, Rome and the World Team Cup in Dusseldorf. Prior to Estoril, Bruguera lost two five setter Davis Cup matches on clay in Spain to Dutch opponents. I highly doubt that Bruguera made a "half-assed, non-peak effort" in front of his home country fans. Similarly, I also doubt that he made "half-assed, non-peak effort" in the Barcelona and Madrid finals, where he lost to Medvedev and Edberg, respectively. In between those Spanish events, Bruguera impressively won Monte Carlo, earning a rare win over Muster in the semis. Muster was the only player to win a set from Bruguera that week.

For someone apparently only interested in RG, it's curious that Bruguera chose to play in Rome and Dusseldorf in the two weeks preceding the 1993 event. Bruguera ran out of steam against Courier in Rome, but then won three straight matches in Dusseldorf, including a 6-1, 6-3 decision over Sampras. The Spaniard carried that momentum into Paris, where he further benefited from a very weak early round draw. In short, Bruguera was red hot coming in, got to conserve energy during the first week, and was able to maintain his nerve against Sampras, Medvedev and Courier down the stretch.

1994 followed a similar script, although Bruguera did not play in Rome that year. He lost to good opponents in Estoril (retired against a young Albert Costa), Barcelona (Krajicek), the Monte Carlo final (Medvedev) and the Madrid final (Muster). Bruguera won three of four matches in Dusseldorf on the eve of RG and again breezed through a very generous first week draw at RG before beating Rafter, Medvedev, Courier and Berasategui for the title. Courier, while still a formidable opponent, was not in tremendous form during the spring of '94. His path to the quarters that year featured three extremely unheralded opponents and another, Bjorkman, who was ranked 105th at the time. Contrast Courier's draw with Muster's and you again see how different things could be.

We could do similar exercises for Bruguera's 1995, 1996 and 1997 campaigns, but it would be redundant. The bottom line is that Bruguera was an excellent clay court player who maximized his brief window at RG thanks in part to some good fortune in terms of timing and draw circumstances, not because he utilized a unique strategy of making "half-assed, non-peak effort" at lead-up events.

 

[tkramer15]

Gomez had a nemesis in Lendl, who beat him in 5 majors (3 French Open quarter finals, 1 US Open quarter final, 1 French Open second round), with Lendl leading 17-2 in their overall head-to-head. Lendl didn't play at the 1990 French Open. I think Gomez was ridiculously underrated at the 1990 French Open. An experienced veteran who had won Barcelona and Madrid, semi final loss to Muster in Rome in a very close match, then beat Muster in straight sets in the French Open semi final, yet 20-year-old Agassi was widely favoured to beat Gomez in the 1990 French Open final. Not a wise bet really.

Right. If I came off as trying to dismiss Gomez, that was not my intention. As you said, he was a grizzled veteran by 1990 and had shown excellent form during the lead-up events. My point was simply that he did benefit from a comfortable draw, including a fourth round walkover. As I like to say, timing and circumstances are crucial in sports (and really in almost anything in life). Gomez had fought long and hard and had maybe not received a break. Things aligned for him in 1990.

 

[NatF]

I didn’t say it is conclusive I explicitly stated that this is not an obvious but just interesting hypothetical and that Fed might well be able to win it. However, when going by the indication we have no matter how small, it at least doesn’t speak against Nadal. Yes he lost against Blake, Gonzo etc but we have seen 100 of times, that meetings between GOAT candidates follow different rules and encounters with other opponents are not always a good measuring stick. Agassi looked better than Pete coming in the Wimbledon 99 final (straight setted Rafter while Pete struggled with Henman and Philippoussies), Nadal better than Djoko before their AO 2019 final and both got straight-setted quite convincingly.

Yes it required choking they is my point as said in my other post. Who tells us that Fed wouldn’t choke again? As I stated, his confidence at that point was very low and if it somehow got close, it could well happen that he would choke it away. Where exactly did I say that Nadal didn’t have to fight hard? Other than the FO of course he had to, those were five setters, question is why wouldn’t he be able to do it again at the USO? Your argument is he didn’t have the energy left after what he spent in the summer, which is a fair point, but wouldn’t we say the same about a potential AO 09 meeting had Nadal lost the marathon match against Verdasco in the end (i.e. even if he had come through he would never have had enough energy left to beat Fed)?

I agree that many here are underrating Fed, but I don’t. I just beg the question whether Nadal could have beaten Fed, never said he would for sure never even put a likelihood on it. You say he wouldn’t which is fine as we will never know for sure anyways. However, I don’t see it as just a clear cut as you that is all. He did meet Nadal on favourable courts like the YEC where he beat him even in 2010/11, I just don’t see the USO08 courts as favorable to him as indoor conditions.

Let's agree to disagree. Happy to accept you thinking its not as clear as I think it is but it doesn't really belong as a serious edition to this thread imo.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Let's agree to disagree. Happy to accept you thinking its not as clear as I think it is but it doesn't really belong as a serious edition to this thread imo.

Ok then.

 

[abmk]

Many factors must coalesce for someone to win a grand slam. Even the likes of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have occasionally needed some good fortune. The 1990s were of course much more varied in terms of surfaces and styles. Player depth, particularly clay court depth, increased significantly in the mid to late '90s. Timing and circumstances were crucial. Draws at slams could be very different in terms of difficulty for seeded players.

With that said, I totally refute the notion that Bruguera made "half-assed, non peak effort" at "non-RG tournaments," as if to explain his lack of winning elsewhere while propping up his approach as superior to others who perhaps compiled more well-rounded resumes without as many deep runs at RG.

Prior to his 1993 RG title, Bruguera had compiled a 5-4 record in Paris, having lost in the fourth round to Ronald Agenor in 1989, the round of 64 to Jonas Svensson in 1990 (Bruguera lost 6-0 in the fifth after leading two sets to love), the second round in 1991 to Omar Camporese (Bruguera retired with back injury while leading two sets to one; He said he felt something while training in between in first and second round matches), and in the first round in 1992 to Lendl 6-4, 6-2, 6-1. He played virtually the same spring clay court schedule leading up to Roland Garros in those years that he would for the remainder of his career.

In the lead-up to his 1993 RG title, Bruguera played in six tournaments -- Estoril, Barcelona, Monte Carlo, Madrid, Rome and the World Team Cup in Dusseldorf. Prior to Estoril, Bruguera lost two five setter Davis Cup matches on clay in Spain to Dutch opponents. I highly doubt that Bruguera made a "half-assed, non-peak effort" in front of his home country fans. Similarly, I also doubt that he made "half-assed, non-peak effort" in the Barcelona and Madrid finals, where he lost to Medvedev and Edberg, respectively. In between those Spanish events, Bruguera impressively won Monte Carlo, earning a rare win over Muster in the semis. Muster was the only player to win a set from Bruguera that week.

For someone apparently only interested in RG, it's curious that Bruguera chose to play in Rome and Dusseldorf in the two weeks preceding the 1993 event. Bruguera ran out of steam against Courier in Rome, but then won three straight matches in Dusseldorf, including a 6-1, 6-3 decision over Sampras. The Spaniard carried that momentum into Paris, where he further benefited from a very weak early round draw. In short, Bruguera was red hot coming in, got to conserve energy during the first week, and was able to maintain his nerve against Sampras, Medvedev and Courier down the stretch.

1994 followed a similar script, although Bruguera did not play in Rome that year. He lost to good opponents in Estoril (retired against a young Albert Costa), Barcelona (Krajicek), the Monte Carlo final (Medvedev) and the Madrid final (Muster). Bruguera won three of four matches in Dusseldorf on the eve of RG and again breezed through a very generous first week draw at RG before beating Rafter, Medvedev, Courier and Berasategui for the title. Courier, while still a formidable opponent, was not in tremendous form during the spring of '94. His path to the quarters that year featured three extremely unheralded opponents and another, Bjorkman, who was ranked 105th at the time. Contrast Courier's draw with Muster's and you again see how different things could be.

We could do similar exercises for Bruguera's 1995, 1996 and 1997 campaigns, but it would be redundant. The bottom line is that Bruguera was an excellent clay court player who maximized his brief window at RG thanks in part to some good fortune in terms of timing and draw circumstances, not because he utilized a unique strategy of making "half-assed, non-peak effort" at lead-up events.

Bruguera lost to Medvedev twice before RG 93 and absolutely crushed him in the RG 93 semi. He didn't need to hold his nerve either vs sampras. He was simply vastly superior than Sampras at RG 93.

I didn't say Bruguera half-assed in every event. But his level at RG was higher than most other events and very clearly so.
You can try out multiple things in events leading up to the slams as well.

At the last part, on the contrary, Bruguera had injury issues in 95 RG semi and recovering from serious injury in 96 clay season.

He beat Sampras, Med and especially peak Courier in 93 RG. Again Med, Courier and Berasategui in 94 RG. Neither are anywhere near easy draws.
So no, he didn't have good fortune in terms of timings or draws.

Bruguera didn't utilize the strategy of half-assing it in lead-up events. Its just that he wasn't the Muster type to give it his all day in day out in the smaller events.

 

[Mustard]

Bruguera lost to Medvedev twice before RG 93 and absolutely crushed him in the RG 93 semi.

A similar thing in 1994, i.e. Medvedev beat Bruguera in the 1994 Monte Carlo final 7-5, 6-1, 6-3, only for Bruguera to beat Medvedev in their 1994 French Open quarter final 6-3, 6-2, 7-5. However, Medvedev is not Muster, and the Medvedev vs. Bruguera dynamic was totally different to the Muster vs. Bruguera dynamic. Bruguera said that it was Muster's relentless focus that was the problem for him.

Ironically, Muster rarely beat Bruguera as comfortably on clay as Medvedev often did in some of their matches.

 

[tkramer15]

Bruguera lost to Medvedev twice before RG 93 and absolutely crushed him in the RG 93 semi. He didn't need to hold his nerve either vs sampras. He was simply vastly superior than Sampras at RG 93.

I didn't say Bruguera half-assed in every event. But his level at RG was higher than most other events and very clearly so.
You can try out multiple things in events leading up to the slams as well.

At the last part, on the contrary, Bruguera had injury issues in 95 RG semi and recovering from serious injury in 96 clay season.

He beat Sampras, Med and especially peak Courier in 93 RG. Again Med, Courier and Berasategui in 94 RG. Neither are anywhere near easy draws.
So no, he didn't have good fortune in terms of timings or draws.

Bruguera didn't utilize the strategy of half-assing it in lead-up events. Its just that he wasn't the Muster type to give it his all day in day out in the smaller events.

I agree with your last line -- Muster certainly appeared to go all out more often.

Bruguera did indeed benefit from comfortable early round draws during his three best Roland Garros runs -- I'm not sure how that can be refuted. I point that out not to totally devalue Bruguera's impressive results, but rather to put the entire period into perspective. Draws absolutely mattered back then. It's a significant factor as to why Muster didn't feature in the later rounds of Roland Garros more often. Yes, timing and circumstances are crucial in sports. Tennis is no different.

It's impossible to determine whether Bruguera saved certain elements of his game during matchups that occurred a month or more prior to Roland Garros in the event that a rematch might occur AT Roland Garros. On any given day, a lot of things can impact a result, particularly in matchups at the highest level between fairly evenly matched opponents who have faced each other on several occasions. Although Medvedev had won all three previous meetings with Bruguera heading into that '93 RG SF, each match had gotten progressively closer (Bruguera won a set in each meeting with the Barcelona final being a tight four setter). From that '93 RG semi on, Bruguera rattled off five wins in six meetings with Medvedev before losing their final encounter in 1997 (leaving their head-to-head at 5-5).

I used the phrase "held his nerve" as a generality, only because the mental aspect is obviously crucial in tennis. Bruguera inherently did a fine job holding his nerve later in those tournaments.

I understand that Bruguera had differing circumstances in 1995 and 1996. My point was that he did play a nearly identical pre-RG clay schedule in each of those seasons. His clay preparation was also nearly identical between 1990 and 1992. It must be noted that he also faced much tougher early draws in 1991, 1992 and 1996. All of these elements matter in some way.

 

[Enceladus]

1990 Wimbledon- Zina Garrison, Martina Navratilova, Monica Seles, Steffi Graf. This ring sort of involves 4 players. Anyway Zina Garrison had a match point vs Seles in the quarters. If she converts, it is a Graf vs Seles semi final, which is a guaranteed Graf victory (Graf won 6-2, 6-1 and 6-1, 6-0 in their only 2 meetings at Wimbledon). Or if Zina does not take out Graf herself in the semis in a gigantic McNeil 94 level upset. Either of these 2 scenarios leads to a Graf vs Navratilova final. Which while it is not impossible Navratilova wins I very much doubt she does. She lost to Graf at both Wimbledon 88 and 89, and while both went to 3 sets, both were highly decisive wins in the end with a very lopsided 3rd set, and all 4 sets Graf won were easy sets. Even with Graf in subpar form at the time, and Martina in fact playing really well at this Wimbledon, I don't see a 33 year old Navratilova on bad knees stemming the tide at this point. Graf had only lost 1 of the previous 5 slams at that point too (the RG final vs Seles, and her last loss before that was the RG final to Sanchez a whole year before that) so her aura was not gone yet at that point, despite her already visibly diminishing play.

Navrátilová would be able to beat Graf at 1990 Wimbledon when she did the same a year later at the US Open.

 

[HBK4life]

We are not talking about Agassi being a Wimbledon champion if somehow Pete gets that god mode he had in the US Open 1990 and got by Goran in 92.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Vic Seixas won the 1954 U.S. singles title after Rex Hartwig knocked out Rosewall and Trabert, two players who always beat Seixas in major tournaments.

Hartwig cooled down for the final against Seixas. Seixas, in discussing this win, more recently stated something to the effect that you can only beat the player on the other side of the net.

 

[Mustard]

We are not talking about Agassi being a Wimbledon champion if somehow Pete gets that god mode he had in the US Open 1990 and got by Goran in 92.

I thought Goran Ivanisevic would beat Andre Agassi, yet Agassi played his very best tennis with high intensity in the first 3 sets and eventually got over the winning line. Agassi had beaten Pete Sampras in their previous match at the 1992 French Open 7-6, 6-2, 6-1.

 

[insideoutforehands]

Nalbandian wasn't easy for Federer.

He sure wasn't but after 2003 Federer definitely had the better of him mostly, especialy in slams.

On topic of the 2004 French does Federer wins if he isn't taken out by an inspired Kuerten? Possible, but I would say it is a tough call. There isn't one person Federer should lose against per say, but hardly anyone would have called him losing to a way past his prime Kuerten here either. Do I see him going through what would still be a tough draw overall of Nalbandian, Gaudio, and Coria in 2004 when while he was already beating everyone on clay, he was also still vurnerable to strange losses like to an also past his prime Costa in early round of an event, baby Gasquet (I think that loss might have been 2005, a year later in fact), etc.. Yeah I would err on the side of no in fact. I would say only 40% chance at best, but certainly plausible all the same.

 

[insideoutforehands]

I thought Goran Ivanisevic would beat Andre Agassi, yet Agassi played his very best tennis with high intensity in the first 3 sets and eventually got over the winning line. Agassi had beaten Pete Sampras in their previous match at the 1992 French Open 7-6, 6-2, 6-1.

Most thought Ivanisevic would beat Agassi yes, but that does neccessarily mean he would have been able to take out Sampras, who is still a significantly worse opponent/match up for him than Ivanisevic, and owned Agassi his entire career on faster courts, particularly at Wimbledon and the US Open both.

To bring a parallel that is like saying nearly everyone thought Seles would beat Sanchez in the 98 French Open final, so that means Sanchez also would have beaten Hingis (who also owns her) had she played her instead. Which clearly would not have happened.

 

[Mustard]

Most thought Ivanisevic would beat Agassi yes, but that does neccessarily mean he would have been able to take out Sampras, who is still a significantly worse opponent/match up for him than Ivanisevic, and owned Agassi his entire career on faster courts, particularly at Wimbledon and the US Open both.

At the time, Agassi led Sampras 4-3 in their head-to-head, while trailing Ivanisevic 0-2.

It's too easy to use hindsight.

 

[NAS]

At the time, Agassi led Sampras 4-3 in their head-to-head, while trailing Ivanisevic 0-2.

It's too easy to use hindsight.

Agassi all victories were on clay at that time?

 

[insideoutforehands]

At the time, Agassi led Sampras 4-3 in their head-to-head, while trailing Ivanisevic 0-2.

It's too easy to use hindsight.

Considering 3 of Agassi's 4 wins were on clay, I wouldn't read into that either. The fact is they already had their first Wimbledon/US Open match where Agassi would go a combined 0-6 vs Sampras, and it was a rout for Sampras, almost 2 years earlier.

Ergo, I go with most, Agassi almost for sure does not win Wimbledon 92 if Ivanisevic does not take out Sampras for him.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

At the time, Agassi led Sampras 4-3 in their head-to-head, while trailing Ivanisevic 0-2.

It's too easy to use hindsight.

Agassi vs Sampras H2H was actually always close. What sets Pete mostly apart is Agassi’s slump in 1996 where Pete was 3-0 with 6-0 in sets and 1999 where he convincingly beat a prime-level Agassi (very impressive) with 4-1.

 

[insideoutforehands]

Agassi vs Sampras H2H was actually always close. What sets Pete mostly apart is Agassi’s slump in 1996 where Pete was 3-0 with 6-0 in sets and 1999 where he convincingly beat a prime-level Agassi (very impressive) with 4-1.

Yes I will say Agassi held his own and was a very legit rival for Sampras. Just that at Wimbledon or the US Open I would still bet on Sampras everytime. Including 1992 when you consider the 1990 US Open final on a surface that should be far better for Agassi to face Sampras on than Wimbledon grass anyway.

 

[Mustard]

Yes I will say Agassi held his own and was a very legit rival for Sampras. Just that at Wimbledon or the US Open I would still bet on Sampras everytime. Including 1992 when you consider the 1990 US Open final on a surface that should be far better for Agassi to face Sampras on than Wimbledon grass anyway.

Sampras barely got by Agassi at 1993 Wimbledon. Agassi at this time was considerably worse than the year before and was using a modified service motion because of his injured wrist. Sampras himself had a shoulder injury at the same time too. Sampras recovered enough to then beat Becker and Courier.

 

[insideoutforehands]

Sampras barely got by Agassi at 1993 Wimbledon. Agassi at this time was considerably worse than the year before and was using a modified service motion. Sampras himself had a shoulder injury at the same time too.

That is true. That is the one valid argument in favor of Agassi. However it still does not overcome his 0-6 lifetime record vs Sampras at Wimbledon/US Open, and having already lost their first contest there nearly 2 years earlier, so you can't make it is a "after the fact" only argument. And yes in 93 Agassi was significantly worse, badly out of shape, and still had a shot to win at Wimbledon vs a stronger Sampras, but he failed. And that is the whole essence, no matter what the timing or circumstances, he always ultimately failed and fell to Sampras at both Wimbledon and the US Open, right from the 1990 US Open final, until Sampras's own final tour match in the 2002 US Open final.

I will put it simply, I would still bet on Sampras in a hypothetical 92 Wimbledon final for sure. If a time machine were invented and forced to bet my life on it, wouldn't even give it a second thought really, and I was a huge Agassi fan back in the day and suffered the torment of his rivalry with Sampras. Others are free to agree or disagree with me, but I was not even the one who made the point, just am backing the one who did.

 

[insideoutforehands]

Navrátilová would be able to beat Graf at 1990 Wimbledon when she did the same a year later at the US Open.

I could also see Navratilova beating Graf in the 1990 Wimbledon final. I don't think the 91 US Open result is a strong indicator for Martina when it was her first win over Graf in 4 entire years, which shows how much Graf owned Navratilova by then still. And when Graf in 91 was just awful for her standards, and even worse than she was in 1990. And when Graf beat Martina the 2 previous years in Wimbledon finals convincingly, which are better barometers.

That said Graf was already in the midst of her slump and in obviously declined form. Martina was very sharp and ready for that Wimbledon. I think it would be a 50/50 match. It would be interesting to see happen if Seles had converted her match point with Garrison in the quarters, obviously leading to a guaranteed Navratilova-Graf final, or if Graf had not lost to Garrison in the semis.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Yes I will say Agassi held his own and was a very legit rival for Sampras. Just that at Wimbledon or the US Open I would still bet on Sampras everytime. Including 1992 when you consider the 1990 US Open final on a surface that should be far better for Agassi to face Sampras on than Wimbledon grass anyway.

Agassi came in as favourite in all their four USO matches and lost all of them. I was a big Agassi fan as a kid and watched all those four matches only to get disappointed over and over again. It showed me though, that one should never bet on Agassi over Sampras at the USO, Pete simply had his number and played his best whenever Andre was on the other side. At Wimblie it was similar. Sure, the 93 match was close but both of them were injured and it was a low quality match in general. Andre was defending champ and Pete had yet to win his first title, I don’t think in the next years he would have needed 5 sets had they played again (including a potential 95 final if Andre comes through against Becker). 99 Andre had just straight-setted a very strong Rafter while Pete had struggled with Philippoussies and Henman and nevertheless it was a straight-set affair. As for 92, I am also convinced Pete would have won it, once he was in a Wimbledon final he switched into special mode, I would never bet against him here let alone against Andre.

 

[insideoutforehands]

Agassi came in as favourite in all their four USO matches and lost all of them. I was a big Agassi fan as a kid and watched all those four matches only to get disappointed over and over again. It showed me though, that one should never bet on Agassi over Sampras at the USO, Pete simply had his number and played his best whenever Andre was on the other side. At Wimblie it was similar. Sure, the 93 match was close but both of them were injured and it was a low quality match in general. Andre was defending champ and Pete had yet to win his first title, I don’t think in the next years he would have needed 5 sets had they played again (including a potential 95 final if Andre comes through against Becker). 99 Andre had just straight-setted a very strong Rafter while Pete had struggled with Philippoussies and Henman and nevertheless it was a straight-set affair. As for 92, I am also convinced Pete would have won it, once he was in a Wimbledon final he switched into special mode, I would never bet against him here let alone against Andre.

And Wimbledon is a more daunting place for Agassi to face Sampras than US Open for obvious reasons. Hence why I would definitely not be betting on Agassi in a hypothetical 92 Wimbledon final with Sampras when he couldn't even do it once in four tries at the US Open, including one well before 92 Wimbledon. And again I was a big Agassi fan when he played, and I couldn't stand Sampras (partly resenting his dominance over all my favorites, Agassi included, and buying into the media narrative he was boring, which in hindsight I see was not entirely fair).

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

And Wimbledon is a more daunting place for Agassi to face Sampras than US Open for obvious reasons. Hence why I would definitely not be betting on Agassi in a hypothetical 92 Wimbledon final with Sampras when he couldn't even do it once in four tries at the US Open, including one well before 92 Wimbledon. And again I was a big Agassi fan when he played, and I couldn't stand Sampras (partly resenting his dominance over all my favorites, Agassi included, and buying into the media narrative he was boring, which in hindsight I see was not entirely fair).

Well to be fair, he was more an early bloomer (and also had better longevity) at the USO than at Wimbledon where his dominance was more concentrated but his demise came quickly. At a time where he was a USO winner he hadn’t even reached a second round at Wimbledon. Anywho, in 92 he was already strong enough, and given their history, I would never bet on Agassi in a Wimbledon final against Pete.

 

[insideoutforehands]

Although on the flip side if Agassi would have won over Sampras in the 92 Wimbledon final (which I don't believe, but not impossible I guess), then maybe he was unlucky Ivanisevic took Sampras out for him. That could have made a HUGE difference in their future matches, and the psychology of the rivalry. Not to the extent of the Courier-Agassi rivalry which I truly believe Courier has almost no success in vs owning Agassi for 5 years after, if Agassi wins the 91 French Open final, but still would change the course of that rivalry some I feel with Agassi having more future success than he did. And as already noted he was already a decent rival for Sampras overall, really the only one he had, apart from the Krajicek types who rarely got far enough in slams to even play Sampras anyway.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

RF easily wins the grand slam had he won over Kuerten in RG04. He dominated Coria in Hamburg 04 and I don't see Gaudio or Nalbandian beating him.

Hamburg and RG are VERY different. He won Hamburg in 2002 and was bad at RG that year and the following.

If you wanna use Hamburg, Gaudio gave him a very tough match.

Nonetheless, I think Federer would have a strong chance against Gaudio in the SF, probably wins, and given how nervous was Coria in the final, he probably beats him.

He doesn't beat Nalbandian though.

1- Nalbandian took out Kuerten in 4.
2- Nalbandian had won their only clay match 6-2 6-1.
3- Nalbandian caused Federer a lot of trouble in RG 2006 before the injury and in Rome 2006 when Federer was far better on clay.

Another one is Fed vs Nalbandian in 2003 us open, if Fed wins the fourth round, he was going to win the us open.

Looking how the Federer-Roddick rivalry turned out to be, one would think so. But Roddick won their most recent match at the time and was very high on confidence that summer, Federer not so much until the TMC. And their following slam match was very close in Wimbledon 2004. That combined with the crowd, I think it would be 60-40 for Federer but Roddick can take it. It would maybe change the course of the rivalry a little bit, maybe it was good for Federer to lose before. Kinda like might have been good for Nadal to lose before Federer at USO 2008. I think Federer can take that match and maybe that affects AO 2009.

2009 Wimbledon- Obviously Fed would get crushed by Nadal in that final if Nadal was healthy. Nadal was peaked out during that time of his career and Fed barely got through his pigeon Roddick

I don't see why it would be that different to Wimbledon 2008. Federer had more random loses that year (2008) and Nadal was not as great in 2009 as 2008.

 

[NAS]

Hamburg and RG are VERY different. He won Hamburg in 2002 and was bad at RG that year and the following.

If you wanna use Hamburg, Gaudio gave him a very tough match.

Nonetheless, I think Federer would have a strong chance against Gaudio in the SF, probably wins, and given how nervous was Coria in the final, he probably beats him.

He doesn't beat Nalbandian though.

1- Nalbandian took out Kuerten in 4.
2- Nalbandian had won their only clay match 6-2 6-1.
3- Nalbandian caused Federer a lot of trouble in RG 2006 before the injury and in Rome 2006 when Federer was far better on clay.




Looking how the Federer-Roddick rivalry turned out to be, one would think so. But Roddick won their most recent match at the time and was very high on confidence that summer, Federer not so much until the TMC. And their following slam match was very close in Wimbledon 2004. That combined with the crowd, I think it would be 60-40 for Federer but Roddick can take it. It would maybe change the course of the rivalry a little bit, maybe it was good for Federer to lose before. Kinda like might have been good for Nadal to lose before Federer at USO 2008. I think Federer can take that match and maybe that affects AO 2009.




I don't see why it would be that different to Wimbledon 2008. Federer had more random loses that year (2008) and Nadal was not as great in 2009 as 2008.

Man what are you talking about, Roddick at that time was also getting beaten by Fed left right and centre.
The only match roddick won,was tie brake in deciding set

 

[AgassiSuperSlam11]

On the Martina and Graf discussion it's important to note that yes Martina had bad knees which shows how resilient she was to still win Wimbledon in 1990. The other important thing to note was that she had bilateral arthroscopic knee surgery in late 1990 months before she defeated Graf in their 1991 USO SF. Graf had recently won Wimbledon and didn't drop a set in the USO until defeated by the 34-year-old Martina (was nearly 35).

 

[Ballmachine87]

Forgot a super obvious one.

1996 French- Kafelnikov, Stich, Muster. Yeah Kafelnikov never beaten Muster here. I am sure nobody will question me on that, even Kafelnikov fans. Nor is Muster ever losing to Pioline in the quarters, or a nervous and off form Rosset in the semis, if he doesn't lose to Stich. For certain Kafelnikov owes his 96 French Open title to Stich's removal of Muster in the round of 16.

another fairly obvious one.

1984 Australian- Evert, Sukova, Navratilova. Sukova took out Navratilova in the semis, ending her long match win streak, and bid for the Grand Slam. Sukova went on to lose to Evert in 3 sets in the final. Navratilova had a 13 match win streak over Evert at this point, so I would say on grass, no way she is losing to her in the final.

Muster would Not have beaten Kafelnikov. Muster's resume at RG is absolutely whack outside of 95. So what excactly makes you so sure he would have won it all in 96. Typical Muster Overhype. He crashed out against a Serve and volley player who was far from bist best in the 4th round.

 

[abmk]

Muster would Not have beaten Kafelnikov. Muster's resume at RG is absolutely whack outside of 95. So what excactly makes you so sure he would have won it all in 96. Typical Muster Overhype. He crashed out against a Serve and volley player who was far from bist best in the 4th round.

Muster is 4-1 vs Kafelnikov (all on clay) and crushed him in RG 95 and in Stuttgart 96 a few weeks after RG 96.
Stich played his best tennis in the 4R match vs Muster in RG 96 and SnVers were Muster's bane. If Stich had played similarly in the final, he'd have edged out Kafelnikov.
Also while Muster under-performed at RG, he also made the semi in 1990.

 

[insideoutforehands]

Muster is 4-1 vs Kafelnikov (all on clay) and crushed him in RG 95 and in Stuttgart 96 a few weeks after RG 96.
Stich played his best tennis in the 4R match vs Muster in RG 96 and SnVers were Muster's bane. If Stich had played similarly in the final, he'd have edged out Kafelnikov.
Also while Muster under-performed at RG, he also made the semi in 1990.

Kafelnikov is also a bad match up for Stich. And is better suited to playing Stich than Muster as he clearly has better passing shots (Muster never had particularly strong passing shots). Which would be a virtual non factor in the Kafelnikov-Muster match up, particularly from Muster's end as his only net play would be to shake hands after the victory.

Kafelnikov's level of play at RG 96 was actually very high, and he was a deserving winner of that slam, even though he is lucky Stich did the deed for him. However Muster was just super dominant on clay at that point, and has a big edge in the match up, atleast on that surface, over Kafelnikov too. And as we both said in another thread, Kafelnikov generally struggles to come up with the really big wins in majors anyway (meaning bigger than Sampras or Stich on clay of course), and beating Muster of 95/96 on clay would be a much bigger slam win than any he ever came up with. It doesn't really matter now, but anyone who thinks Muster would fall to Kafelnikov at RG had they played is thinking/hoping wishfully. Beating someone who beat someone does not mean anything. By that logic Federer would have beaten Nadal if they played at RG 2009 (lol). And for the record I would even give Federer a better chance to beat Nadal in a hypothetical 2009 RG final (still almost nothing, like less than 10% for sure) than Kafelnikov to beat Muster in the hypothetical 96 RG final.

 

[abmk]

Kafelnikov is also a bad match up for Stich. And is better suited to playing Stich than Muster as he clearly has better passing shots (Muster never had particularly strong passing shots). Which would be a virtual non factor in the Kafelnikov-Muster match up, particularly from Muster's end as his only net play would be to shake hands after the victory.

Kafelnikov's level of play at RG 96 was actually very high, and he was a deserving winner of that slam, even though he is lucky Stich did the deed for him. However Muster was just super dominant on clay at that point, and has a big edge in the match up, atleast on that surface, over Kafelnikov too. And as we both said in another thread, Kafelnikov generally struggles to come up with the really big wins in majors anyway (meaning bigger than Sampras or Stich on clay of course), and beating Muster of 95/96 on clay would be a much bigger slam win than any he ever came up with. It doesn't really matter now, but anyone who thinks Muster would fall to Kafelnikov at RG had they played is thinking/hoping wishfully. Beating someone who beat someone does not mean anything. By that logic Federer would have beaten Nadal if they played at RG 2009 (lol). And for the record I would even give Federer a better chance to beat Nadal in a hypothetical 2009 RG final (still almost nothing, like less than 10% for sure) than Kafelnikov to beat Muster in the hypothetical 96 RG final.

Kafelnikov did play well at RG 96 and was a deserving winner for sure.
He'd be an underdog vs Muster though.

I don't agree with that low odds for him nor for Fed in RG 09 vs Nadal.
Fed's level in QF and especially final of RG 09 was high. SF was good enough to beat a red hot delpo.
Of course if Nadal raises his level from the Sod match, he'd be favored.

 

[insideoutforehands]

Kafelnikov did play well at RG 96 and was a deserving winner for sure.
He'd be an underdog vs Muster though.

I don't agree with that low odds for him nor for Fed in RG 09 vs Nadal.
Fed's level in QF and especially final of RG 09 was high. SF was good enough to beat a red hot delpo.
Of course if Nadal raises his level from the Sod match, he'd be favored.

I do think given Federer-Nadal's history on clay and at RG imparticular, Federer's odds would absolutely be that low. Unless you believe Nadal was really that injured (I don't).

As for Muster vs Kafelnikov, you already broke down their history, the blow out loss in Stuggart soon after, and RG 95 was an absolute blow out, so I am even more sure on that. And as I mentioned for whatever reason Kafelnikov seemed incapable of really big slam wins ever, whether that be arguable limitations on his absolute peak play/extra gear, or a mental thing, probably a bit of both, whatever it was, he never had what I could call a really big win at a slam ever, even in his 2 slam wins. And no I don't consider beating Sampras at RG, when Kafelnikov is clearly the better clay player anyway, as a big win really. Not even with all of Sampras's wins at that RG, and his ownage of Kafelnikov (and while I think Kafelnikov probably wins anyway, lets face it he was badly gassed for that semi final and barely on court after losing set 1, which I am sure you watched as well). Like what would you say is Kafelnikov's biggest ever win at a slam, it is surprising for a 2 slam winner he never had a bigger one than whatever it is. So I do think 10% would be tops for Kafelnikov's chances to beat Muster in a hypothetical RG final all things considered. I am not sure Kafelnikov would have even gone on court with belief of winning the match, totally unlike his mindset playing Stich in the final. I do give him credit, his level at that RG was very strong and worthy of the title, but I see him being beaten mentally already (in addition to it being a difficult physical match up to win) in that encounter.

 

[abmk]

I do think given Federer-Nadal's history on clay and at RG imparticular, Federer's odds would absolutely be that low. Unless you believe Nadal was really that injured (I don't).

As for Muster vs Kafelnikov, you already broke down their history, the blow out loss in Stuggart soon after, and RG 95 was an absolute blow out, so I am even more sure on that. And as I mentioned for whatever reason Kafelnikov seemed incapable of really big slam wins ever, whether that be arguable limitations on his absolute peak play/extra gear, or a mental thing, whatever it was, he never had what I could call a really big win at a slam. And no I don't consider beating Sampras at RG, when Kafelnikov is clearly the better clay player anyway, as a big win really. Not even with all of Sampras's wins at that RG, and his ownage of Kafelnikov (and while I think Kafelnikov probably wins anyway, lets face it he was badly gassed for that semi final and barely on court after losing set 1, which I am sure you watched as well).

don't see it. fed in later rounds of 09 (QF-F) was actually better than in 11 RG when he challenged Nadal and had the ability to go the distance - late into the 5th set. less so in 11.
it depends on how much nadal's level is back up from the Soderling match. (no, he wasn't injured).
But I see fed as having a much higher than 10% chance. he had beaten Nadal in madrid 09 taking 2/2 BPs while saving 4/4 BPs.

Given RG 96 was Kafelnikov's best RG and Muster wasn''t great vs Stich (how much due to matchup is debatable), Kafel straight setted Stich (albeit definitely a worse Stich), I'd definitely give Kafel a more than 10% chance, though he'd be the underdog.
conditions were hot/fast at RG 96 so beating Krajicek/Sampras/Stich in a row is not to be dismissed. But of course Sampras was gassed, so that's a factor as well.

 

[Mustard]

Muster led Stich 6-4, 3-2 (with a break). Up to that point, it was a typical Muster match. Muster then suddenly had a bad service game and the rest of the second set and early in the third set became very scrappy and hardfought, with Stich breaking through and dominating most of the third set. In the fourth set, Muster had leads of 3-0, 4-1 and 5-2 but couldn't finish the set off, with Stich winning the tiebreak.

Both players had recently had ankle issues. It was also hot weather at the 1996 French Open, making the conditions a bit different from usual French Opens.

 

[buscemi]

And as I mentioned for whatever reason Kafelnikov seemed incapable of really big slam wins ever, whether that be arguable limitations on his absolute peak play/extra gear, or a mental thing, probably a bit of both, whatever it was, he never had what I could call a really big win at a slam ever, even in his 2 slam wins.

I would say Kafelnikov's straight set win over Agassi in the 1995 French Open QF was pretty big. Agassi was #1 in the world, having won the last 2 Majors, and of course was already a two time French Open finalist, with a title coming there four years later.

 

[Mustard]

I would say Kafelnikov's straight set win over Agassi in the 1995 French Open QF was pretty big. Agassi was #1 in the world, having won the last 2 Majors, and of course was already a two time French Open finalist, with a title coming there four years later.

It was a big win for Kafelnikov, regardless of Agassi's hip flexor issue during the match.

 

[jrepac]

Considering 3 of Agassi's 4 wins were on clay, I wouldn't read into that either. The fact is they already had their first Wimbledon/US Open match where Agassi would go a combined 0-6 vs Sampras, and it was a rout for Sampras, almost 2 years earlier.

Ergo, I go with most, Agassi almost for sure does not win Wimbledon 92 if Ivanisevic does not take out Sampras for him.

I'd have to agree w/that... I also expected Goran to win...was very close

 

[Ballmachine87]

Muster is 4-1 vs Kafelnikov (all on clay) and crushed him in RG 95 and in Stuttgart 96 a few weeks after RG 96.
Stich played his best tennis in the 4R match vs Muster in RG 96 and SnVers were Muster's bane. If Stich had played similarly in the final, he'd have edged out Kafelnikov.
Also while Muster under-performed at RG, he also made the semi in 1990.

Muster crushed many opponents on clay yet lost to them in Paris and he barely ever saw the second week of Roland Garos.

 

[abmk]

Muster crushed many opponents on clay yet lost to them in Paris and he barely ever saw the second week of Roland Garos.

I did mention Muster crushing Kafelnikov at RG 95 itself. Why are you ignoring that?
Why are you not admitting you got it wrong by ignoring Muster reaching RG semi in 90?

 

[Mustard]

Muster crushed many opponents on clay yet lost to them in Paris

Such as?

Muster lost at the French Open in the 1990s to Gomez, Sampras, Courier, Rafter, Stich, Kuerten, Mantilla and Lapentti, the latter being his last match when he had months of bad form. You talk like Muster was losing to mugs.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Such as?

Muster lost at the French Open in the 1990s to Gomez, Sampras, Courier, Rafter, Stich, Kuerten, Mantilla and Lapentti, the latter being his last match when he had months of bad form. You talk like Muster was losing to mugs.

Not exactly mugs but also way better on paper than in reality. Rafter, Stich and Pete all had clay at their worst surface and none of them were in their prime when Muster lost to them. Gomez and Guga were both not at their prime either and Mantilla and Lapentti are not players any great clay player should lose to (he may be excused to some extent here as he himself wasn’t prime anymore). The only ones who are excusable are the losses against Courier who was in his absolute prime and a great clay courter. However, depending on what standards we put here (and regarding Muster those are very high normally, some people calling him Nadal’s predecessor or the best clay courter of the 90s) one should expect that he at least once overcomes a guy like Courier. So saying that for his standards he underperformed at RG is absolutely correct.

 

[Mustard]

Not exactly mugs but also way better on paper than in reality. Rafter, Stich and Pete all had clay at their worst surface and none of them were in their prime when Muster lost to them. Gomez and Guga were both not at their prime either and Mantilla and Lapentti are not players any great clay player should lose to (he may be excused to some extent here as he himself wasn’t prime anymore). The only ones who are excusable are the losses against Courier who was in his absolute prime and a great clay courter. However, depending on what standards we put here (and regarding Muster those are very high normally, some people calling him Nadal’s predecessor or the best clay courter of the 90s) one should expect that he at least once overcomes a guy like Courier. So saying that for his standards he underperformed at RG is absolutely correct.

Muster was in bad form in the first half of 1991 as well.

Muster in 1995-1996 being 111-5 on clay is why he's sometimes compared with Nadal, along with the similar gamestyles.

Gomez in 1990 was a battle hardened veteran, and had been beaten by Lendl so often in the past.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Muster was in bad form in the first half of 1991 as well.

Muster in 1995-1996 being 111-5 on clay is why he's sometimes compared with Nadal, along with the similar gamestyles.

Gomez in 1990 was a battle hardened veteran, and had been beaten by Lendl so often in the past.

So being “beaten” many times makes Gomez a tough opponent? I know you are a Muster fan but simple question: don’t you also think he underperformed at RG relatively to his level elsewhere?

 

[abmk]

Not exactly mugs but also way better on paper than in reality. Rafter, Stich and Pete all had clay at their worst surface and none of them were in their prime when Muster lost to them. Gomez and Guga were both not at their prime either and Mantilla and Lapentti are not players any great clay player should lose to (he may be excused to some extent here as he himself wasn’t prime anymore). The only ones who are excusable are the losses against Courier who was in his absolute prime and a great clay courter. However, depending on what standards we put here (and regarding Muster those are very high normally, some people calling him Nadal’s predecessor or the best clay courter of the 90s) one should expect that he at least once overcomes a guy like Courier. So saying that for his standards he underperformed at RG is absolutely correct.

Muster wasn't good in 91 tbh. So loss to Sampras there is understandable.
That was Stich's best RG, so you can't say he wasn't at his prime.

Muster shouldn't have lost to both Rafter and Stich though.

That was Gomez's best RG, no? but obviously Muster should have done better.
Kuerten wasn't at his prime, but still what a run.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Muster wasn't good in 91 tbh. So loss to Sampras there is understandable.
That was Stich's best RG, so you can't say he wasn't at his prime.

Muster shouldn't have lost to both Rafter and Stich though.

That was Gomez's best RG, no? but obviously Muster should have done better.
Kuerten wasn't at his prime, but still what a run.

Stich and Gomez weren’t in their primes in general. With Stich you can say that he played his best clay court tennis that year with Gomez not so sure. Having your best result at a tournament and being at your best does not always go hand in hand, otherwise 2020 FO Nadal or Goran 2001 Wimbledon would be prime. Rafter in 1994 hadn’t even won a tournament. You can maybe excuse individual losses, but fact is the number of let’s say unnecessary losses are just too many to ignore the fact that Muster underperformed at the French.