Kralingen
Talk Tennis Guru
how about the other two?
Could any Big 3 member could beat Prime Bruguera on Clay and Prime PETE on Carpet in the same season?
- Thread starter Kralingen
- Start date
Musterrific
Hall of Fame
Please. We all clearly know that had Muster gotten past his "kryptonite" (masterful S&V players like Rafter), at RG that year, he would have demolished his pigeon Bruguera in the 4th round (they were slated to meet there).
No second slam for hapless Sergi.
abmk
Bionic Poster
oh please. Sergi would have beaten Muster at RG just like he beat Courier at RG in 93-94. And Courier always beat him on clay outside of RG.
3-0 outside of RG and 0-2 at RG.
President
Legend
nadal has very little chance against Sampras on carpet. I think Novak could take Bruguera but worse chances than fed against Sampras simply due to his weaker service game and I don’t think he’d be as effective as many think returning Sampras’ serve. You need to chip those back IMO, and Fed is better at that than Novak
metsman
G.O.A.T.
It is not shown in that video (the players walking onto the court) - stepping on a slick low bouncing court for once in their adult lives.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
If we acknowledge Federer has the most tailor made game ever for low and sure bouncing courts then he technically probably has the highest clay+indoors peak ever too lol.
Remember that Fraud on even low bouncing clay looks like a world beater. Entirely possible he laps the field more on low bouncing hard than anyone on any surface and obviously his pure clay peak can go with anyone besides Nadal or Borg (and think it is reasonable to say that we've seen Fed is closer to Nadal on clay than Nadal is to him indoors in direct matchup). Of course untestable, but tough to ignore just the sheer dominance of some of the 03/04/06 fall performances especially how crazy good his BH looked in direct matchup with the other elite left sides (Safin, Agassi, Nadal). Safin, for a set, was the only one who even looked like they belonged on the same court as that version of Federer, because he's the only one with a serve/return big enough to disrupt Federer's baseline wizardry in those conditions, and plus he's also the only one who can even try to match Federer's sheer ballstriking intensity on those courts. Federer's game is a complete cheat code besides that one weakness which is the only reason he ever really struggled in his peak in an important match, but that disappears indoors (or in low bounce) and the sheer variety of his BH plus easier to time lower bounce makes it a tremendous weapon. Unfortunate that 04-05 injuries prevented him from really building up a crazy resume there as well as seeing him in full flight on carpet (Basel 06 is all we get)
Last edited:
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Peak Lendl won 3 straight YEC dropping 1 set to Becker (3-0 meetings, 8-1 in sets). Sounds like peakness. Becker is obviously a greater indoor master than anyone Fred beat in his prime...
Safin had BP at 4-1 for a double break btw, imagine he clips the line to take it. Fedr breadsticked by peak Safin ROFLMAO.
Rafa fansYeah, Nadal who has won exactly 2 indoor titles in his entire career would take out Pete on carpet.
Only peak
Sampras-Bruguera 1993
Legend
agassi took the ball on the rise. and controlled the neutral court. Djokovic doesn't have that same ability from the baseline as he is far more defense base. What Agassi lacked in athleticism, he more than made up for it with baseline aggression/best hand eye coordination of any player ever. Thats why he was much better on fast courts than Djokovic is
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
Muster was just a horrible match up for Bruguera and owned him over the years. Seemed to have a big mental edge on him too. I think if Muster ever reaches Bruguera at RG he wins, probably even in 93-94. I rememberin 97 how easily Muster beat Bruguera in the Miami final after Bruguera had played one of his best matches ever to beat Sampras in the semis.
The Muster, Bruguera, Courier clay trilogy is interesting in that the match ups seemed to go Courier > Muster, Muster > Bruguera, and Bruguera > Courier in who it favored. Although Bruguera and Courier was by far the most even match up of the two, the others were very one sided. Muster vs Courier head to head sounds close at 7-5, but that is with Muster winning their first two meetings, and last 3 in 97 when Courier was well past it. Courier won all 7 meetings straight in between, including some very easy wins on clay, even if he didn't play peak Muster of 95-96 on clay but given how easily he demolished Muster at the U.S Open I am not sure if Muster could have handled him even on clay had they met. Courier vs Muster and Muster vs Bruguera were both extreme in one guys favor, and it was evident just from watching some of the matches on various surfaces. Bruguera vs Muster is 12-3 but Bruguera has 2 of the 3 wins in 1991 which was Muster's worst year on tour probably. The only other win is a 7-6 in the final set on clay in 93.
Mark-Touch
Legend
No, but Nalbandian could.
Kralingen
Talk Tennis Guru
I think it’s pretty clear Djokovic does have that ability… not Agassi’s equal in taking the ball on the rise, but then no history in the player of tennis is.
Not a super fast court here but I think if peak Djoko had to adjust to fast courts he’d play a lot more like this than the defensive player he became in the slower mid-2010s.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
Safin match wasn't indoors anyways even if that line of reasoning led anywhere (as Fed relaxed at the start of the set and blew his own break chance with some loose play, not to mention peak Safin on the quicker hards was significantly better than mid 80s teenage becker and probably even any Becker and Federer absolutely masterclassed him in the first set). Becker didn't serve or play well at all in those matches vs Lendl anyways, would have been target practice for Federer. Becker that showed up from 94-96 vs Sampras with the huge first serve dominance and more all court instead of forced net approaches was a different beast entirely indoors.
Anyways, all that is well and good, ultimately Federer does literally everything better than Lendl indoors by a clear margin. Quicker, better athlete, bigger weapons, better serve, more variety, etc. etc. etc.
Mac, Lendl were terrific quick court players but usually when someone is both a better athlete and has the bigger weapons (fed, PETE) while giving up basically nothing in feel (and in the case of Lendl, having more feel) it's very hard pressed to beat them. Mac at least has the lefty serve thing going for him and godly feel. Those two are a cut above the rest on fast courts at their best, susceptible maybe to only a hypothetical 6'5" guy whose weapons are too nuclear to reliably put down and thus the match is a bit less in your hands.
Last edited:
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
how many carpet Slams did anyone win? lol
Kralingen
Talk Tennis Guru
Serious question have you made a single post on this website that wasn't just pure trolling
Kralingen
Talk Tennis Guru
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
You're getting into kool-aid propagandist territory, bro.
Lendl back to overrated mug territory eh, surely a subtle dig at Djokovic who we've determined to be basically Lendl so... was weak era anything outside of PETE and FRED's peak years because it sure looks like it.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
Yeah the gall to claim that Pete and Fed are the best on fast courts, can't imagine what on earth led me to make that wild assertion. Maybe next I'll go even crazier and claim Borg and Nadal are the best on clay.
And anyways Pete never showed the overwhelming dominance of Fed in these conditions (1 loss in fall season in TMF days under extreme duress, masterclass in basically every single big SF/F he played) so over a prime series little doubt who wins. Obviously single match Pete is too big a force to ignore. It's impossible to get the better of Federer in neutral rallies on lower bouncing courts since his BH is no longer exploitable, so you need a weapon even bigger than his and crazy first strike capabilities to prevent those neutral rallies in the first place. Only Pete with his serve + 1/2 game and ability to easily hit through the court really qualifies. Anyone who plays a rhythmic game while also letting Federer execute all his usual plays behind serve (and really only Safin with his return proved capable of stopping this) will get taken to funhouse against a Federer in full flight.
Last edited:
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
No one else in the OE posted numbers comparable to peak Nadal and Borg even for one clay season. If anyone ever does this, that alone would be grounds for some equivalence, not that I think that'll happen. But McEnroe and Lendl did have tremendous 60-something indoor streaks including multiple dominant YECs and you just dismiss them on the basis of 'objective analysis' like some vulture mugs. Way to go, bro.
TripleATeam
G.O.A.T.
Federer I think would be a shoo-in to get wins over both in the same season assuming they played 10 seasons together, assuming they play often enough. Djokovic could get wins over either (50-50 or slightly worse on clay, maybe 30-70 or 20-80 on carpet), so it would depend on how often they would meet for it.
If we assume there is a maximum of 3 clay meetings and a maximum of 2 carpet meetings each year? Then I think that Federer would get a win over Bruguera in at least 7/10 seasons, Djokovic 8/10 seasons, and Nadal 10/10 seasons. Against Sampras it's 7/10, 4/10, 2/10 respectively.
So I think all 3 could do it, but for Nadal it would be fluking a couple wins against Sampras on carpet in his best years, while just dominating Bruguera. Eventually he'd break through. For Federer he'd be more or less 50-50 against both Sergi and Sampras (maybe a little worse off, but not by much), so eventually it'd line up. For Djokovic he'd be pretty much 50-50 against Bruguera too, but much worse against Sampras. Sampras would definitely be better, but I don't think Djokovic wins would be uncommon, just maybe like 2/3 times Sampras wins.
Probably Federer >> Djokovic > Nadal in terms of chances though.
If we assume there is a maximum of 3 clay meetings and a maximum of 2 carpet meetings each year? Then I think that Federer would get a win over Bruguera in at least 7/10 seasons, Djokovic 8/10 seasons, and Nadal 10/10 seasons. Against Sampras it's 7/10, 4/10, 2/10 respectively.
So I think all 3 could do it, but for Nadal it would be fluking a couple wins against Sampras on carpet in his best years, while just dominating Bruguera. Eventually he'd break through. For Federer he'd be more or less 50-50 against both Sergi and Sampras (maybe a little worse off, but not by much), so eventually it'd line up. For Djokovic he'd be pretty much 50-50 against Bruguera too, but much worse against Sampras. Sampras would definitely be better, but I don't think Djokovic wins would be uncommon, just maybe like 2/3 times Sampras wins.
Probably Federer >> Djokovic > Nadal in terms of chances though.
All three could.
Technology has progressed far. Modern frames and strings produce more spin and power. Any one of the big 3 could overpower Bruguera on clay, and their returns and passing shots would be too much for Pete on carpet. Honestly, it's not just the big 3 - the next few tiers of players could do the same.
The game progresses, and the old guard have been left behind time and time again.
Technology has progressed far. Modern frames and strings produce more spin and power. Any one of the big 3 could overpower Bruguera on clay, and their returns and passing shots would be too much for Pete on carpet. Honestly, it's not just the big 3 - the next few tiers of players could do the same.
The game progresses, and the old guard have been left behind time and time again.
How many green clay did rafa Win?
metsman
G.O.A.T.
In reality, looking at numbers and streaks to determine peak level is the real vulture mug analysis.
But going that route, Federer didn't lose in his peak during the fall season when healthy, won 6 of 7 YEC when he was healthy despite the courts shamefully slowing down at the end, still slapped the whole new generation in 2010 though, and like I said produced masterclass level tennis in every single big SF/F during fall season in his peak, winning 18/18 sets, 16 of them by a break, 14 of them in regulation(6-4 or better). 7 double break sets (a few more squandered due to casualness), 4 bagels. 03 TMC, 04 TMC, 06 Madrid/TMC - those matches cover basically every notable player of his era. He didn't play the full season due to the 04/05 injuries but those are some rather shiny numbers as well. Pete wasn't as consistent indoors, many times had #1 wrapped up and was chilling as he did, but obviously his peak there was overwhelming in many matches.
70sStrokes
Rookie
Guga Kurten beat Sergi at the French Open and beat Sampras and Agassi at the Paris Indoors. I would say Novak as a answer to the question though.
boris becker 1
Semi-Pro
Federer wouldnt beat Bruguera on slow clay. Could beat Sampras
Nadal would destroy Bruguera and have no chance om Carpet vs Sampras
Djokovic could beat both.
Nadal would destroy Bruguera and have no chance om Carpet vs Sampras
Djokovic could beat both.
ForehandRF
Legend
Bruguera wouldn't beat the very best versions of Fed on clay like 2006 Rome Final, 2007 RG Final or the 2011 RG SF.Heck, I'd even argue for Monte Carlo 2006 Fed 
Last edited:
fluffyyelloballz
Rookie
Federer would be able to do it 2006-7 version,
Similar threads
- Poll
