Originally Posted by zam88
Some say he impacted it positively because he was a great role model and excellent for the sport. He was every bit the media and commercial success that Federer is.
However some say he impacted it negatively because he was so dominant that it left little intrigue in the match.
He was so dominant without dropping sets and consistently bageling, breadsticking, and golden setting people that he never had any signature legendary 5 set matches, or any type of a real rival.
IN fact, on internet tennis message boards, people were beginning to wonder whether the player was actually brilliant or if the era was unbelievably weak.
Going into the 2021 AO there was little hope for anyone else to win, if you wanted to bet on him it was 1/5 that he would win the title. 2/1 that he'd win it without dropping a set.
If he had a real mark it was that every time he changed surfaces, he changed his game just a little to optimize on that surface.
But really his trademark was the absolute blowouts
Many weigh a high level of play heavily when considering great players. To exand on this, did players try and emulate the style of play he adopted? Did they try and behave the way he did during matches (on court demeanor)? Did they adopt many of his training methods off court? In those ways, a great player could leave a brilliant legacy for those that followed. I think that the hypothetical player you describe would definitely be in the conversation, especially since there tends to be a modern bias. If a player accomplished that much by 2021, many fans at that time would be absolutely convinced that he would crush Federer, Nadal, or any player before him, because of the natural "evolution" of tennis. I doubt that I would agree with that even by then, but that tends to occur during every era. If that happened, guess what? The Nadal and Federer fans of today would be making the very same arguments that posters in the Former Pro Player Talk section make today wouldn't they?