Which one of the current players would have won a career slam in the 80s and 90s ?

tennisaddict · 01-28-2013, 08:44 AM

Ok, there is enough credibility in the argument about homogenization of surfaces.

Yet the current top 4 have shown they are good on all surfaces (except Murray at Clay, but he will get there soon)

Some say career slam is not a big achievement any more.

Assuming this as the case, which of the current players would have in any case got a career slam even if they played in the 80's and 90's ?

Gonzo_style · 01-28-2013, 08:49 AM

Carlos Berlocq

tennisaddict · 01-28-2013, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gonzo_style

Carlos Berlocq

your posts are stupid.

Gonzo_style · 01-28-2013, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tennisaddict

your posts are stupid.

I'm his fan, what's wrong?

Anyway, the answer to your question is Nadal

tudwell · 01-28-2013, 08:59 AM

For most of the 80s the Australian was on grass and poorly-attended. Federer and Nadal could have won it with ease.

Nadal would win the French a bunch in any era and would probably grab a Wimbledon as well. The U.S. Open would have been a bit tougher for him with guys like Lendl and Connors in the 80s and Sampras and Agassi in the 90s consistently making it deep, plus the faster courts. But I bet he could've done it.

Federer's biggest challenge would be winning the French. Nadal would be out of the way, but other great clay courters like Wilander and Lendl would be in his way. I bet he could nab one (or more) in the 90s, though.

Nitish · 01-28-2013, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tennisaddict

Ok, there is enough credibility in the argument about homogenization of surfaces.

Yet the current top 4 have shown they are good on all surfaces (except Murray at Clay, but he will get there soon)

Some say career slam is not a big achievement any more.

Assuming this as the case, which of the current players would have in any case got a career slam even if they played in the 80's and 90's ?

federer has the best chance but RG would be tough

President · 01-28-2013, 09:11 AM

Federer definitely would, Nadal and Djokovic might have some trouble on 90's grass I would have to see them play on it before I could make a judgement.

Ginger ninja · 01-28-2013, 09:19 AM

Transported back in time, they'd all win the australian and us open

None of them would win Wimbledon.

Ralph would win the French.

I believe that if these four competed, at their peak, with 80s/90s players also at their peak, winners and runners up would be as follows:

Australian Open - djokovic def federer
French open - nadal def borg
Wimbledon - Sampras def mcenroe
Us open - federer def djokovic

Thoughts?

tudwell · 01-28-2013, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by President

Federer definitely would, Nadal and Djokovic might have some trouble on 90's grass I would have to see them play on it before I could make a judgement.

If Borg and Wilander could win multiple slams on fast grass and Agassi could win Wimbledon even in the 90s, I think Nadal could nab at least one title.

WhiskeyEE · 01-28-2013, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tudwell

If Borg and Wilander could win multiple slams on fast grass and Agassi could win Wimbledon even in the 90s, I think Nadal could nab at least one title.

agassi hit flat and was more aggressive. I don't see Nadal winning on fast grass. He's vulnerable during the first week even on the slow stuff.

Fed's the only one I see doing it.

mattennis · 01-28-2013, 09:28 AM

If I had to bet my life on it, my possible answer would be any of:

a) no one.

b) only Federer.

Max G. · 01-28-2013, 09:29 AM

None. Besides. They probably wouldn't have even bothered playing the Australian mostly, and thus at best would have ended up with 3/4.

tennis_pro · 01-28-2013, 09:29 AM

Nadal would surely win a FO, probably an AO or 2 with a good draw. I don't see him winning Wimbledon and his chances of winning the US Open aren't that great either, given that there would be more than 1 or 2 players capable of beating him on a fast hard court which the US Open WAS in the 90's.

Djokovic - I could see him winning the AO and US Opens, Wimbledon NOT A CHANCE IN HELL, the FO - decent chance.

Federer - Definitely an AO and US, he's by far the best hard court player ever, could sneak out a FO especially if Nadal is not in the draw. Wimbledon - Federer won it in 2003 by doing tons of SV so I could surely see him win at least one (duh).

tennis_pro · 01-28-2013, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tudwell

If Borg and Wilander could win multiple slams on fast grass and Agassi could win Wimbledon even in the 90s, I think Nadal could nab at least one title.

I don't see Nadal being successful attacking the net all the time.

Phoenix1983 · 01-28-2013, 09:35 AM

Federer would have done it in any era.

We saw from the way he played against Sampras in W 2001 that he could serve and volley on grass if necessary. The FO he would have won more often than he did in reality - only Borg would've represented a similar obstacle to Nadal.

USO and AO he dominates in any era.

jokinla · 01-28-2013, 09:47 AM

Federer for sure.

01-28-2013, 08:44 AM	#1
tennisaddict Professional Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 998	Which one of the current players would have won a career slam in the 80s and 90s ? Ok, there is enough credibility in the argument about homogenization of surfaces. Yet the current top 4 have shown they are good on all surfaces (except Murray at Clay, but he will get there soon) Some say career slam is not a big achievement any more. Assuming this as the case, which of the current players would have in any case got a career slam even if they played in the 80's and 90's ?

01-28-2013, 08:49 AM	#2
Gonzo_style Hall Of Fame Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 2,203	Carlos Berlocq __________________ "You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else." - Durden

01-28-2013, 09:29 AM	#13
tennis_pro G.O.A.T. Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 11,732	Nadal would surely win a FO, probably an AO or 2 with a good draw. I don't see him winning Wimbledon and his chances of winning the US Open aren't that great either, given that there would be more than 1 or 2 players capable of beating him on a fast hard court which the US Open WAS in the 90's. Djokovic - I could see him winning the AO and US Opens, Wimbledon NOT A CHANCE IN HELL, the FO - decent chance. Federer - Definitely an AO and US, he's by far the best hard court player ever, could sneak out a FO especially if Nadal is not in the draw. Wimbledon - Federer won it in 2003 by doing tons of SV so I could surely see him win at least one (duh). __________________ "By the Nalbandian logic, I could beat Federer when I'm "in form". Nalbandian is only a threat to linesmen." - pvaudio

01-28-2013, 09:35 AM	#15
Phoenix1983 Semi-Pro Join Date: Nov 2012 Posts: 733	Federer would have done it in any era. We saw from the way he played against Sampras in W 2001 that he could serve and volley on grass if necessary. The FO he would have won more often than he did in reality - only Borg would've represented a similar obstacle to Nadal. USO and AO he dominates in any era. __________________ Oldest living male Grand Slam champs: Seixas, Patty, Falkenburg, Savitt, Sedgman, Rose, Trabert, Pietrangeli, Fraser, Rosewall.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode