Originally Posted by TMF
But instead of being a dominant baseliner today, Federer would be a dominant s/v player, as he would adapt to the different environment. Of course converting to a dominant s/v, he would give up some his baseline prowess, there's a give and take.
In today's era, a great baseliner would be a slam winners. Being a s/v player is dead meat. But in the 90s, great s/v players AND great baseliners both can win multiple slams. So with more option to play with, this gives Roger better chance because he's a versatile player. He can win as a baseliner or a s/v player, or a combination of both. Players in the 90s doesn't have his versatility. Unlike today, it's impossible to win slam playing s/v, regardless of his versatility. I think variety(mixture of s/v and baseline game) works to his advantage.
How do you know that? I'm not saying he wouldn't, but saying he would have a "field day" with s&v'ers/big servers with all-around games such as Sampras, Becker, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Stich on fast surfaces is ridiculous. He would have it very tough.
Federers serve AND volley/net game is inferior to Sampras, who was a natural. What proof do you have that Federer would be a dominant serve and volleyer?
Again, he MIGHT have been but its all speculation.