Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   General Pro Player Discussion (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   How would Federer do in the 90's? (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=461676)

Anti-Fedal 04-25-2013 06:48 AM

How would Federer do in the 90's?
 
Had he been born 10 years earlier, what does everybody think his career would look like?

forzamilan90 04-25-2013 06:54 AM

He'd be even more effective (slower conditions now benefit Rafito and Horus more than our Eagle).

Likely would have won a Calendar Grand Slam

corners 04-25-2013 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forzamilan90 (Post 7367203)
Likely would have won a Calendar Grand Slam

Yeah, Sampras at Wimbledon would have been the key to completing the Grand Slam, rather than Rafa at the French. But since grass is his best surface...

forzamilan90 04-25-2013 07:15 AM

Just saying Rafa on clay is about as nightmare as a match up for Fed as you can get. Put prime Fed in 90s and on grass vs Sampras I think Fed can beat him...same goes for US Open, Fed is best hard courter in history. Clay....ain't no Nadal there, so Fed will surely have a much better chance of getting a FO. AO...Agassi was missing for prolonged periods of time and his best results there came a bit later.

No joke, Fed would have won a GS...wins AO and FO takes out the toughest challenge Sampras in W, and then the USO is done.

Relinquis 04-25-2013 07:35 AM

federer would have more RGs for sure.

his big competition at RG would have been Guga. I think he would have lost to him a couple more times, but not the same extent as he lost to Nadal... Rafa is just such a bad match-up.

tennis_pro 04-25-2013 07:44 AM

BETTER THAN SAMPRAS, THAT'S FOR SURE.

I'd like to hear what 90'sclay has to say about it. How many majors would Roger win, bro, 3?

Relinquis 04-25-2013 07:49 AM

i think he would have fewer wimbledons. Sampras would have taken a couple off of him for sure, if not splitting them almost evenly.

probably compensated for the fewer wimbledons with more RGs and more AOs and certainly more US Opens.

Agassi wouldn't exist. To have both Federer and Sampras beating up on him would have been too much. Probably would have ended up being a good baseballer, or TV actor.

dudeski 04-25-2013 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anti-Fedal (Post 7367192)
Had he been born 10 years earlier, what does everybody think his career would look like?

About 17 + 11 slams give or take a couple if he gets bored and retires early due to lack of competition. Winning 12 to 16 consecutive slams might have that effect.

NatF 04-25-2013 07:59 AM

Probably a little worse off in terms of number of slams due to Sampras on hard and grass. But no one would be mentioning h2h and he'd possibly be more balanced in terms of clay. Sampras would be much worse off though.

tennis_pro 04-25-2013 08:05 AM

I don't know but as sure as hell 90's Federer would acheive 10x as much as Sampras would in the current slow era.

TMF 04-25-2013 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forzamilan90 (Post 7367203)
He'd be even more effective (slower conditions now benefit Rafito and Horus more than our Eagle).

Likely would have won a Calendar Grand Slam

Agree, only Nadal the clay goat could only stop Federer.

ManFed 04-25-2013 08:12 AM

I would have liked to see 1996 Sampras vs 2006 Federer at Wimbledon and US Open

veroniquem 04-25-2013 08:18 AM

Fed played in the 90s. He played his first ATP event in 1998. His game worked much better in the 2000s though...

NatF 04-25-2013 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by veroniquem (Post 7367373)
Fed played in the 90s. He played his first ATP event in 1998. His game worked much better in the 2000s though...

Stupid post. He was teenager in the 90's, he didn't find his game properly until 2003. Nothing to do with the conditions favoring him more in 90's, he just wasn't developed until then.

TMF 04-25-2013 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by veroniquem (Post 7367373)
Fed played in the 90s. He played his first ATP event in 1998. His game worked much better in the 2000s though...

Yes, and he as fully developed and was in his prime.:rolleyes:

The Isomotion31 04-25-2013 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ManFed (Post 7367359)
I would have liked to see 1996 Sampras vs 2006 Federer at Wimbledon and US Open

Oh hell yes. That would of been an awesome match.

egn 04-25-2013 08:52 AM

Is Sampras still in the 90s? Is Agassi still there as well? Are we lining him up to hit hims prime right at the time of Sampras.

On 90s grass I'm giving Sampras say 5 wimbledons from 90-00 and Federer 3, Agassi probably doesn't win his the early 90s stay the same and I imagine Krajicek wins none either.

On 90s US Open I say they both win 4.

90s Australian Open, I imagine Fed can beat Sampras here. Sampras gets 1 probably this time and I imagine Fed takes away Kafelinkov's, Kodra's and Becker's Australian open wins in the later 90s. I'm gonna say Fed still only gets 4 but Sampras is probably going to lose 1 to Fed.

90s clay. Federer wins one possibly two. He definitely could beat Kafelinkov, Baby Moya or Baby Guga to grab two of those. Baby Guga being the hardest out of those.

Fed 3+4+4+2 = 13
Samp 5+4+1 = 10

Though I don't stand by these numbers but I say both will get into the 10 range, but low 10 range and people will know them for having a ridiculous rivalry. Fed isn't winning any calendar slams and neither will have the amount of time at number 1 as they had. However If this scenario happened it would be similar to Navratilova/Evert and they would get a ton of credit for playing against some of equal skill all the time.

Geology_Rocks! 04-25-2013 08:53 AM

Waiting for The Order to say he wouldn't win a 500 event.

NadalAgassi 04-25-2013 08:54 AM

Sampras would be better than Federer on 90s style grass without question, and Federer would have alot of strong competition there besides Pete. So probably only 1 or 2 Wimbledons vs the 7 he has now.

U.S Open would be between him and Pete with some other contenders. Maybe 2 or 3 there.

Australian Open he would have alot of competition from Agassi. Probably 2 or 3 titles there.

French there was a ton more depth on clay then but no clay courters near Nadals level (but many of them around Federers level which is obviously light years below Nadals) so 1 or 2 titles there.

On average probably something like 8 vs the 16 he has now.

Cup8489 04-25-2013 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi (Post 7367498)
Sampras would be better than Federer on 90s style grass without question, and Federer would have alot of strong competition there besides Pete. So probably only 1 or 2 Wimbledons vs the 7 he has now.

U.S Open would be between him and Pete with some other contenders. Maybe 2 or 3 there.

Australian Open he would have alot of competition from Agassi. Probably 2 or 3 titles there.

French there was a ton more depth on clay then but no clay courters near Nadals level (but many of them around Federers level which is obviously light years below Nadals) so 1 or 2 titles there.

On average probably something like 8 vs the 16 he has now.

LOL.

You don't watch tennis. Never have.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:44 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse