How would Federer do in the 90's?

spinovic · Apr 25, 2013

kragster said:
There is a reason calendar slams are ridiculously hard to achieve even when there have been many dominant players. During Fed's 3 slam years, he was by far the best player on both hard and grass. Hewitt/Roddick etc are fierce competitors but they are not in Sampras league (so say the numbers, not just my opinion). If Fed played in the Sampras era, he would only be the slight favorite at USO/Wimby (and I'm being generous here because their records have both of them tied). The chances of taking Muster/Kuerten out at RG and then Sampras out at both Wimby and USO, all in the same year are a lot lower than you think.

If you think of winning the Grand Slam as a cumulative probability

Prob (AO) x Prob (RG) x Prob (Wimby) x Prob (USO)

Let's say for Fed's peak years in 04-07 it used to be (assuming Fed was in the finals) AO - 90% vs any opposition, RG 20% , Wimby 90% , USO 90%

If put in the 90s, it would be AO - 75% , RG 50%, Wimby 55% (slight favorite over sampras), USO 55% (slight favorite over Sampras)

If you multiply these you will find only a slight increase in the cumulative probability for Fed's grand slam.

Excellent point. A calendar slam is not a given, even if you go with the assumption that Federer's game would have developed exactly as it did in either era. He would have likely been the dominant guy on clay, IMO, but if you move him up 10 years, then his peak becomes '94-97.

Tournament - Champion def. Runner-up (Other two SF's)

1994 Australian Open - Pete Sampras def. Todd Martin (Jim Courier, Stefan Edberg)
1994 Wimbledon - Pete Sampras def. Goran Ivanisevic (Todd Martin, Boris Becker)
1994 US Open - Andre Agassi def. Michael Stich (Karel Novacek, Todd Martin)

1995 Australian Open - Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (Michael Chang, Aaron Krickstein)
1995 Wimbledon - Pete Sampras def. Boris Becker (Andre Agassi, Goran Ivanisevic)
1995 US Open - Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (Boris Becker, Jim Courier)

1996 Australian Open - Boris Becker def. Michael Chang (Mark Woodforde, Andre Agassi)
1996 Wimbledon - Richard Krajiceck def. MaliVai Washington (Jason Stoltenberg, Todd Martin)
1996 US Open - Pete Sampras def. Michael Chang (Goran Ivanisevic, Andre Agassi)

1997 Australian Open - Pete Sampras def. Carlos Moya (Thomas Muster, Michael Chang)
1997 Wimbledon - Pete Sampras def. Cedric Pioline (Todd Woodbridge, Michael Stich)
1997 US Open - Patrick Rafter def. Greg Rusedski (Jonas Bjorkman, Michael Chang)

So, move his prime up 10 years, and for this point's sake, assume he wins Roland Garros from 1994-97. Of the other 12 slams in that span, he would have had to go through Sampras 7 times and Agassi in two others. Not to mention, he may have had to go through both in some of those depending on the draw.

It would seem that 1996 would have been the best opportunity for Federer's calendar slam. Sampras was upset early in both Australia and Wimbledon (Kafelnikov won Roland Garros). In all the other years, Sampras and Agassi won 8 of 9 (with Rafter's US Open in 1997 being the exception).

There's a reason its only been done once. Consider Sampras - 14 slams, 6 year end #1's. Never won more than 2 slams in a calendar year.

spinovic · Apr 25, 2013

Le Master said:
And I would argue that Sampras was much closer to his past best than Federer was to his future best. So I think the match is very telling.

Absolutely agree there. Neither guy was at their peak, so in reality, it doesn't tell us a whole lot, but Sampras was closer to his than Federer at that point. Even after 2000 Wimbledon, he proved that he could bring it when he was motivated for a tournament - he made the US Open finals from 2000-02, winning the last one. You'd have a hard time convincing me that he wasn't motivated at that 2001 Wimbledon. He looked pretty good in that match to me. Federer just played great and showed a flash of what was ahead.

Start da Game · Apr 25, 2013

spinovic said:
Impossible to say. People love to bring court conditions into it, but the advances in string technology is rarely, if ever, brought up. The advances made in Polyester strings were a game changer. It is just as much responsible for the rise of baseline, counter-punching as anything.

The fact is that Federer matured and hit his stride right around the time all those changes were taking place. He was a very aggressive player (watch his 2001 upset of Sampras) earlier in his career, but adjust his game based on the changing conditions. I think that's one of the reasons he's been so good for so long. He tweaked his game to play more on the basline as is necessary in today's tennis, but had the aggressive game in his pocket from the previous years, which has translated into the all-court game he is now known for.

My general opinion is that these guys are the greatest of their era, which leads me to believe they would succeed at an extremely high level in any era.

Would he win more French Open's? Maybe. But, then again, he may have been a Sampras clone had the changes not occurred that lead him to adjust his game. He admits Sampras is the guy he idolized growing up, so who would he have styled his game after had he been the same age as Pete. Like I said, these what ifs raise endless questions and possibilities - and the changes between the mid-90's and now, or even between the late-90's and now make it very difficult to play that game.

federer was an aggressive player alright but what did he win when he was an aggressive player? a small title here and there.......which only emphasizes what i said above - it was difficult to dominate on multiple surfaces and stay consistent like these guys do today.......

like every great player before, even federer was hindered by the variety of surfaces and opposition and couldn't string together a lot of good results......that is exactly what happened in sampras's career when he first started in the late 80s and early 90s.......even though he blasted his way to an early slam win, it really took a while for pete as well to firmly decide his playing style.......it was only after that harsh decision to become an out and out serve and volleyer that he started succeeding at wimbledon.......

transforming himself into a serve and volleyer from an attacking baseliner.......don't you think that was some adapting from pete? why is it that people have to sound as if tennis began with federer?

sampras won a slam as a teenager with a different style of tennis but federer hadn't won anything until they changed the surfaces and wiped out the last remaining bit of variety on tour.......whatever the media blows today, the sheep fall for it.......

Start da Game · Apr 25, 2013

spinovic said:
Absolutely agree there. Neither guy was at their peak, so in reality, it doesn't tell us a whole lot, but Sampras was closer to his than Federer at that point. Even after 2000 Wimbledon, he proved that he could bring it when he was motivated for a tournament - he made the US Open finals from 2000-02, winning the last one. You'd have a hard time convincing me that he wasn't motivated at that 2001 Wimbledon. He looked pretty good in that match to me. Federer just played great and showed a flash of what was ahead.

he was under prepared as usual for that tournament.......looked bland and out of shape.......motivation was only going to take him so far.......he almost lost to some randomer in the second round, barely got by in 5 sets.......

kragster · Apr 25, 2013

Le Master said:
And I would argue that Sampras was much closer to his past best than Federer was to his future best. So I think the match is very telling.

Yes a 5 set match is VERY telling. You act like Federer beat Sampras 6-4,6-4,6-4.

spinovic said:
Absolutely agree there. Neither guy was at their peak, so in reality, it doesn't tell us a whole lot, but Sampras was closer to his than Federer at that point. Even after 2000 Wimbledon, he proved that he could bring it when he was motivated for a tournament - he made the US Open finals from 2000-02, winning the last one. You'd have a hard time convincing me that he wasn't motivated at that 2001 Wimbledon. He looked pretty good in that match to me. Federer just played great and showed a flash of what was ahead.

If , Bringing it for a tournament or making finals is an indication of how well a player is playing, then Federer was still in his prime in 2012!

Tennis_Hands · Apr 25, 2013

tipsa...don'tlikehim! said:
One thing for sure, Nadal in his prime would kick the ass of this brazilian transexual, anytime !

Anything except RG 2008 Nadal would have had his hands full with Guga on the other side of the net.

And ... do us a favour, when speaking about one of the few claycourt specialist, whose game was an eyecandy, show the necessary respect.

tipsa...don'tlikehim! · Apr 25, 2013

Tennis_Hands said:
Anything except RG 2008 Nadal would have had his hands full with Guga on the other side of the net.

And ... do us a favour, when speaking about one of the few claycourt specialist, whose game was an eyecandy, show the necessary respect.

i was just clowning around no big deal

(but seriously you think kuerten would beat nadal in years 2005, 2006, 2007? don't think so !

Tennis_Hands · Apr 25, 2013

tipsa...don'tlikehim! said:
i was just clowning around no big deal

(but seriously you think kuerten would beat nadal in years 2005, 2006, 2007? don't think so !

What I am saying is, is that Kuerten was of such a caliber, that he would have given Nadal problems (possibly denying him 1 or 2 RG titles).

tipsa...don'tlikehim! · Apr 25, 2013

Tennis_Hands said:
What I am saying is, is that Kuerten was of such a caliber, that he would have given Nadal problems (possibly denying him 1 or 2 RG titles).

his backhand was massive but massive enough to counter the biggest forehand spin in history? well we'll never know anyway but dont think so :twisted:

Towser83 · Apr 25, 2013

To be honest I'm not sure about the calendar year slam if Federer was in the same era with Sampras. That's a ridiculously hard era with both of them. He is going to be sharing Wimbledon and US Open titles with sampras and then the same year he wins both of those he also has to win the French.The AO I think he would probably own, especially late 90s. Also going into the 2000s he could pick up nice haul of slams. No young Fed around so the only question is could old fed beat young Hewitt and Roddick (and Safin to a lesser extent) and old Agassi? Cos if he can he has til about 2006 to win AO, USO and Wimbledon. I think young Safin is gonna be a big problem, but not there that often, same with old Agassi, Hewiit and Roddick are going to cause some problems but at the same time Fed matches up with them well.

wy2sl0 · Apr 25, 2013

Wow I see this all totally different. I see Fed owning the FO, and splitting Wimby's with Pete.He may get 2-3 AO's, and run the tables as the USO.

Maybe 5-6 FO's, 2-3 AO, 2-3 Wimbledons, 4-5 USOs = 13-17 Majors.

I think that many people don't realize how good Fed is on clay. So his 2004 loss was before he became much better 06-12. Since 06:

4 Finals and a Win in the past 7 years for Fed. Not bad.

tennis_pro · Apr 25, 2013

NadalAgassi said:
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.

Yet the only time they played each other baby Federer took out the 4-time defending champion on fast grass.

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

Name the other contenders. Yzaga and Kodra?

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

What competition from Agassi? He won in 1995, was owned in 1996 in the SF being in his worst mental state, didn't play in 1990-1994 and 1997, lost early in 1998-1999. What kind of fierce competition are you talking about? Hell, 1995 Agassi wouldn't even be certain to beat Federer in that tournament as he would be facing 23-year old prime Federer there.

NadalAgassi said:
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.

In the early 90's maybe. Mid to late 90's Federer would sweep the FO's. Still, I would give Federer a better chance of winning the FO having to play Courier, Bruguera, Muster, Kuerten in consecutive matches rather than facing prime Nadal all the time.

FEDERERNADAL13 · Apr 25, 2013

In the 10 years, I'd see Fed winning more than he did in reality:

AO: From what I've read, the competition was not amazing here, except for the occasional Agassi appearance.

Fed was very very good at the faster AO pre-2010, so I would imagine he would be very very good in the 90's. Since Agassi only won 2 in the 90's and Pete 3, I'll say that Fed wins the other 5, since he did very well on a similar surface in reality.

So 5 AO's, maybe 3 in a row at some point.

RG: The only force that stopped Fed from winning 5 of these (!!!) was the best clay courter ever. Also, Fed played that man very tough in most of those finals, and the one semi.

I'd say the 90's field would not be able to stop the Fed train with the same results that Rafa did. Roger was stopped by Rafa 4 years in a row, so I can see Roger cleaning up the RG title. I can see him winning 5 RG's as well, with 4 in a row at some point. From 2005-2007 and then 2009 Roger was a beast on clay, so I can see this happening.

So 5 FO's for Rogi.

SW19: I see Roger and Pete having many amazing matches here, with them going back and forth for the title. I don't see either winning many in a row, but both would have a good #. I think Roger would beat Pete in 7/10 matches at SW19, just because I see Roger beating Pete when they get older! If 19 year old Fed can beat 29 year old Pete, surely 29 year old Fed could beat 29 year old Pete! At least in my humble opinion!

So 7 Wimbys again for the Man.

USO: I see Fed and Pete splitting the USO almost evenly. Pete would draw from the crowd here to win the rubber match to take the USO series 6-4 IMO. More epic matches, more drama, more win!

4 for Fed here!

So, to sum up, I can see Roger winning 5 AOs, 5 FOs, 7 SW19s, and 4 USOs.

I also would venture a guess that in one of his years of wins he would get the calendar-year-slam, as he was so good at everything (except against Rafa at FO).

Now this is just my opinion, please don't call me a fed**** or a Sampras hater or whatever. I see Roger being dominant at the AO, FO, and Battling Pete at the years' last two majors. I like Pete and Andre, I just honestly believe Roger could get all of this done.

You may not like my view of Wimbledon, but I think that Prime Sampras vs Prime Fed would split, then post prime Fed would beat post Prime Sampras every time.

You may not like my view of RG, but no Rafa= more win for Roger, and I regard him as a very strong clay courter (one of the best ever), so I see him thrashing the competition here.

You may not like my view of the AO, but the fields were weaker and Agassi was AWOL a lot, so I think 5 is fair, when he won 4 in reality.

And I hope you like the USO, because I think this is totally fair!

I favoured Fed here obviously, but he is the most accomplished player in the open era, so I do not believe it is a stretch to assume he'd be more successful when he is removed from Rafael "the impossible" Nadal (to quote my favourite troll, the one and only NSK).

Thanks for reading, it was a long post! haha

Bobby Jr · Apr 25, 2013

NatF said:
Not a weak era, just no one of Sampras' calibre on hards and grass. It's not like Sampras had anyone of Federer's calibre either...

How many two time Wimbledon winners were in their prime during Sampras' prime? None...

Federer has someone who fits the bill though.

Bobby Jr · Apr 25, 2013

spinovic said:
...Consider Sampras - 14 slams, 6 year end #1's. Never won more than 2 slams in a calendar year.

A salient point can be made here. Sampras was the HUGE beneficiary of having disparate competition throughout the year - much moreso Federer. That Sampras was able to have 6 year end #1s on the trot while often winning only one major shows how fragmented and inconsistent the field was. By contrast 2012 was the only year in the last 6 or 7 when someone was #1 having only won a single major. To dominate the game now you have to be more dominant than in the 90s.

In 98 for example Sampras won 1 major and had a semifinal at the US Open, a 2nd round at the FO and QF at the Aussie. That is a worse majors result than any of the leading four major contenders last year. Nadal only played two of the majors and did better. Even crazier, Sampras didn't even win a single M1000 title that year. He was also the year ending #1 - on achievements that wouldn't even get you the #2 ranking in the last 5 or 6 years.

People hate to admit it but if Federer had it easy then Sampras had it way easier in many ways - just different ones, and over a much longer time-frame.

90's Clay · Apr 25, 2013

He would definitely struggle more because he would have to implement a more ATTACKING style, which is in itself more high risk.

Certainly nowhere near 17 slams. Not with Becker, Edberg (early on), Sampras and Agassi all throughout the 90s, and Goran on grass, Rafter later on (Who owned Fed in the h2h etc)

Then you got Courier and Bruguera and Muster and Guga later on on clay.

He would be trading the #1 spot with Agassi and Sampras

He certainly wouldn't be getting 3 slams a freakin year for multiple years. No way no how. He would do very well of course, but not nearly as well as he did in the 00's

Bobby Jr · Apr 25, 2013

90's Clay said:
.....Not with Becker, Edberg (early on)...

Then you got Courier and Bruguera and Muster and Guga later on on clay.

Come on. After 1991 Becker only made two majors finals in the next 6 years. After his 1990 AO win he went 19 majors with only 4 semifinal showings. He would have been no bigger a hurdle to a player like Federer than Tsonga was - capable of beating him, but rarely on the biggest stages. Similarly, Courier most often lost to players who could stick it to him with variety (slices, s'n'v, serve variety etc). He would have been what Almagro is to Federer if they were both in their primes.

Guys like Todd Martin, Jason Stoltenberg, MaliVai Washington, Cédric Pioline, Todd Woodbridge, Tim Henman, Magnus Larsson, Marc Rosset, Filip Dewulf, Fernando Meligeni etc were making gs semi-finals in the 90s. When players the calibre of Nishikori, Seppi, Querrey, Chardy, Melzer, Fognini etc are making the semis of at least one major a year I'll believe the 90s were as competitive as this era.

90's Clay · Apr 25, 2013

Bobby Jr said:
Come on. After 1991 Becker only made two majors finals in the next 6 years. After his 1990 AO win he went 19 majors with only 4 semifinal showings. He would have been no bigger a hurdle to a player like Federer than Tsonga was - capable of beating him, but rarely on the biggest stages. Similarly, Courier most often lost to players who could stick it to him with variety (slices, s'n'v, serve variety etc). He would have been what Almagro is to Federer if they were both in their primes.

Becker was still extremely good on both Grass and Indoors.

Fed would certainly still have his issues with that guy at both places. Even an OLDER Becker is more of a threat then even a prime Roddick was to Federer on grass. And is perhaps the best indoor player to ever play the game.

Courier in the early 90s at his peak was AWESOME. Name me ONE Federer *(2003-2007)contemporary that is as good as early 90s Courier.

Towser83 · Apr 25, 2013

90's Clay said:
He would definitely struggle more because he would have to implement a more ATTACKING style, which is in itself more high risk.

Certainly nowhere near 17 slams. Not with Becker, Edberg (early on), Sampras and Agassi all throughout the 90s, and Goran on grass, Rafter later on (Who owned Fed in the h2h etc)

Then you got Courier and Bruguera and Muster and Guga later on on clay.

He would be trading the #1 spot with Agassi and Sampras

He certainly wouldn't be getting 3 slams a freakin year for multiple years. No way no how. He would do very well of course, but not nearly as well as he did in the 00's

ROTFLMAO. Rafter was 3-0 over Federer the last meeting coming when Federer was 19 in Halle prior to Fed taking out Sampras at Wimbledon, so basically prior to his breakthrough when most people became aware of him. On the other hand Rafter almost won Wimbledon 2 weeks later. Rafter still had to come back from losing the first set 6-4 to only squeak by in 2 tiebreaks. And that'sbaby Fed vs grass court prime, Rafter.

If anything this shows that baby Fed was not far off having the beating of Rafter at his best.

Relinquis · Apr 25, 2013

Guga would be the only real competition for federer on clay... no one else was of that high level... their matches would have been epic though.

Bobby Jr · Apr 25, 2013

Towser83 said:
...If anything this shows that baby Fed was not far off having the beating of Rafter at his best.

Pretty much. Even the other Baby-Fed (Dimitrov) would manhandle prime Rafter playing how he did a year ago so prime Federer would make prime Rafter look like Vincent Spadea.

BeHappy · Apr 25, 2013

He would win a lot less, but so would Sampras. Just as Borg, McEnroe and Connors all won less whenever their new rival came on the scene.

In the mid 90's Fed wouldn't have had a chance at the French because that was the strongest clay court field ever. There were lots of players who could hit forehads with just as much spin as Nadal, like Brugera and Muster:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoMBxY7hgcQ

Agassi, Muster, Brugera, Berasatugai, Chang, Medvedev, Corretja, Costa. The mid 90's were the strongest era on clay in history.

Federer could have won a French in the early or late 90's though where the field was weak as a whole, But he wouldn't have been a shoe in by any means either as Courier and Agassi were great in the early 90's, and Kuerten was very strong in the late 90's, Corretja and Costa were good too.

I think Federer would have dominated the USO with Sampras stealing 1-2, and the reverse on the fast Wimbledon grass.

mattennis · Apr 25, 2013

People don't get it (except for one of two posters).

Federer wouldn't play the way he played in the 00s had he been born 10 years earlier.

Also Edberg, Sampras or McEnroe would play a totally different game had they been born 10-20 years later (respectively).

Jeffrey573639 · Apr 25, 2013

mattennis said:
People don't get it (except for one of two posters).

Federer wouldn't play the way he played in the 00s had he been born 10 years earlier.

Also Edberg, Sampras or McEnroe would play a totally different game had they been born 10-20 years later (respectively).

I'm pretty sure most people understand that but there'd be no room whatsoever for debate

Towser83 · Apr 25, 2013

Bobby Jr said:
Pretty much. Even the other Baby-Fed (Dimitrov) would manhandle prime Rafter playing how he did a year ago so prime Federer would make prime Rafter look like Vincent Spadea.

Also just thought how 90s clay goes on about how Nadal was such a rookie on grass in 2006, because before the start of Wimbledon he had played 9 grass court matches. Federer had played about 11 before Halle 2001 and still almost beat a grass great like Rafter at his best on old grass. Amazing how great baby fed was. He then goes to Wimbledon on 18 pro grass matches and beats Sampras the defending champ! On old grass. As a total grass greenhorn.

Bobby Jr · Apr 25, 2013

BeHappy said:
...In the mid 90's Fed wouldn't have had a chance at the French because that was the strongest clay court field ever...

Agassi, Muster, Brugera, Berasatugai, Chang, Medvedev, Corretja, Costa. The mid 90's were the strongest era on clay in history.

Seriously? Federer is a better clay court player - by far than Agassi, Chang or Medvedev and probably a couple others you mentioned there.

Sampras beat Bruguera at the 96 French Open so Federer definitely could. He also beat Courier the same year. Sampras, one of the worst clay court players who is also a all-time great, beat the only two players who won multiple French Open titles in the 90s and one (Bruguera) was still in his prime.

Having watched the late 80s and all of the 90s as an avid tennis fan there is no doubt in my mind that the level of tennis on clay is far superior now to the 90s when Bruguera/Courier/Muster had their run. The movement was far worse and serving (for Muster/Bruguera especially) was pitiful compared to these days.

BeHappy · Apr 25, 2013

Bobby Jr said:
Come on. After 1991 Becker only made two majors finals in the next 6 years. After his 1990 AO win he went 19 majors with only 4 semifinal showings. He would have been no bigger a hurdle to a player like Federer than Tsonga was - capable of beating him, but rarely on the biggest stages. Similarly, Courier most often lost to players who could stick it to him with variety (slices, s'n'v, serve variety etc). He would have been what Almagro is to Federer if they were both in their primes.

Guys like Todd Martin, Jason Stoltenberg, MaliVai Washington, Cédric Pioline, Todd Woodbridge, Tim Henman, Magnus Larsson, Marc Rosset, Filip Dewulf, Fernando Meligeni etc were making gs semi-finals in the 90s. When players the calibre of Nishikori, Seppi, Querrey, Chardy, Melzer, Fognini etc are making the semis of at least one major a year I'll believe the 90s were as competitive as this era.

Todd Martin and Cedric Pioline were very good players and don't belong with those other names.

Bobby Jr · Apr 25, 2013

BeHappy said:
Todd Martin and Cedric Pioline were very good players and don't belong with those other names.

They were just examples of players who did well despite having next to no chance of winning a major. They were like the Mardy Fish and Juan Monaco-type players of the 90s.

BeHappy · Apr 25, 2013

Bobby Jr said:
Seriously? Federer is a better clay court player - by far than Agassi, Chang or Medvedev and probably a couple others you mentioned there.

Sampras beat Bruguera at the 96 French Open so Federer definitely could. He also beat Courier the same year. Sampras, one of the worst clay court players who is also a all-time great, beat the only two players who won multiple French Open titles in the 90s and one (Bruguera) was still in his prime.

Having watched the late 80s and all of the 90s as an avid tennis fan there is no doubt in my mind that the level of tennis on clay is far superior now to the 90s when Bruguera/Courier/Muster had their run. The movement was far worse and serving (for Muster/Bruguera especially) was pitiful compared to these days.

The thing is, whoever won the French was in red hot form. The years that Brugera won Federer definitely couldn't have beaten him, the year Muster won Fed definitely couldn't have beaten him.

Medvedev was as good as Federer on clay when he played well in my opinion. Chang could have been a problem just as Gilles Simon, Murray and Canas and other negative players have been for Federer, as unlike Simon and Murray, Chang could actually play on clay. Who knows what would have happened in 2007 if Fed had met Canas on clay?

Federer is not better on clay than Agassi was and I don't care what anyone on this board or even Agassi himself says. Agassi was amazing on French Open clay. He didn't have the high backhand weakness. Brugera and Muster in particular would have simply destroyed Federer's backhand just like Nadal (and Volandri). Federer simply cannot handle even second rate players who can hit the ball with incredible spin to his backhand, just ask Igor Andreev.

I agree Federer could have beaten Brugera in 1996, but not the years Brugera won when he was red hot. An advantage Sampras had over Fed was that he just wouldn't let someone pummel his backhand, he served and volleyed even on clay if that match up presented itself.

Federer is a great, great player, but his record on clay is skewed by the mental breakdowns of Coria and Gaudio. The Gaudio who went 42-8 or something like that on clay as returning RG champion in 2005 was incredible on clay, and Coria had gotten off to a shaky start with Fed but his match against Nadal in the Rome final of 2005 was simply amazing. He was one of the most magically talented players I've ever seen including Fed. I don't think Fed would have been reaching all those clay court finals if the only clay court specialists beside Nadal hadn't retired. Federer never ever looked like he could beat Nadal on clay other than in 2006.

BeHappy · Apr 25, 2013

Bobby Jr said:
They were just examples of players who did well despite having next to no chance of winning a major. They were like the Mardy Fish and Juan Monaco-type players of the 90s.

No they weren't. They weren't like Juan Monaco, a guy who has played most of his career ranked 20-80, or Mardy Fish who only played well for a year and a half of his entire career. Cedric Pioline had arguably the greatest backhand ever (he's right up there) and a great all round game, and Todd Martin was like a net rushing Del Potro or Berdych.

forzamilan90 · Apr 25, 2013

Agassi better than Fed on clay??! Did I just read this nonsense?

90's Clay · Apr 25, 2013

BeHappy said:
The thing is, whoever won the French was in red hot form. The years that Brugera won Federer definitely couldn't have beaten him, the year Muster won Fed definitely couldn't have beaten him.

Medvedev was as good as Federer on clay when he played well in my opinion. Chang could have been a problem just as Gilles Simon, Murray and Canas and other negative players have been for Federer, as unlike Simon and Murray, Chang could actually play on clay. Who knows what would have happened in 2007 if Fed had met Canas on clay?

Federer is not better on clay than Agassi was and I don't care what anyone on this board or even Agassi himself says. Agassi was amazing on French Open clay. He didn't have the high backhand weakness. Brugera and Muster in particular would have simply destroyed Federer's backhand just like Nadal (and Volandri). Federer simply cannot handle even second rate players who can hit the ball with incredible spin to his backhand, just ask Igor Andreev.

I agree Federer could have beaten Brugera in 1996, but not the years Brugera won when he was red hot. An advantage Sampras had over Fed was that he just wouldn't let someone pummel his backhand, he served and volleyed even on clay if that match up presented itself.

Federer is a great, great player, but his record on clay is skewed by the mental breakdowns of Coria and Gaudio. The Gaudio who went 42-8 or something like that on clay as returning RG champion in 2005 was incredible on clay, and Coria had gotten off to a shaky start with Fed but his match against Nadal in the Rome final of 2005 was simply amazing. He was one of the most magically talented players I've ever seen including Fed. I don't think Fed would have been reaching all those clay court finals if the only clay court specialists beside Nadal hadn't retired. Federer never ever looked like he could beat Nadal on clay other than in 2006.

They dont seem to understand this. Bruguera was a essentially a Topspin freak-like Dirtballer who could generate around the same RPM's on the ball with older racket technology that Nadal can do today with today's racket technology.

'93 Bruguera and Early's 90s Courier and Peak Muster would eat Fed for lunch on clay. Their peaks were better then Fed's peak on clay

People also forget the French Used to play like Monte Carlo as well as far surface speed went. Much slower then it is today where Fed is more at home with a bit faster clay conditions

President · Apr 25, 2013

90's Clay said:
They dont seem to understand this. Bruguera was a essentially a Topspin freak-like Dirtballer who could generate around the same RPM's on the ball with older racket technology that Nadal can do today with today's racket technology.

'93 Bruguera and Early's 90s Courier and Peak Muster would eat Fed for lunch on clay. Their peaks were better then Fed's peak on clay

People also forget the French Used to play like Monte Carlo as well as far surface speed went. Much slower then it is today where Fed is more at home with a bit faster clay conditions

Did Bruguera or Muster move anywhere near as well as Nadal? Did they have his shotmaking abilities and mental strength? Were they even ANYWHERE near the same caliber of player overall? Nadal isn't just topspin, its a combination of factors that makes him such a tough ask for Federer and the clay GOAT. Federer would win at least 3 RG titles in the 90's if not more, deal with it. His game is much better adapted to win on clay than Sampras or even Agassi.

Bobby Jr · Apr 25, 2013

BeHappy said:
The thing is, whoever won the French was in red hot form. The years that Brugera won Federer definitely couldn't have beaten him, the year Muster won Fed definitely couldn't have beaten him.

Federer has also had hot form patches on clay also - having even beaten perhaps the greatest clay courter of all time. And Federer's hot form on clay is definitely better than Muster's.

BeHappy said:
Federer is not better on clay than Agassi was and I don't care what anyone on this board or even Agassi himself says. Agassi was amazing on French Open clay. He didn't have the high backhand weakness. Brugera and Muster in particular would have simply destroyed Federer's backhand just like Nadal (and Volandri). Federer simply cannot handle even second rate players who can hit the ball with incredible spin to his backhand, just ask Igor Andreev.

Bruguera was right handed. Are you seriously implying his backhand would be pummeling Federer's? If anyone would be on the losing end of who had the weaker backhand in that match-up it would be Bruguera, not Federer.

Likewise, Nadal is basically the only player who has ever been able to consistently pummel Federer's backhand so versus Muster (another Lefty) Federer would surely perform better since Nadal's forehand is miles more spinny and suited to hammering Federer's backhand than Muster's ever was.

BeHappy said:
I agree Federer could have beaten Brugera in 1996, but not the years Brugera won when he was red hot.

I disagree. Ditto for Courier.

BeHappy said:
An advantage Sampras had over Fed was that he just wouldn't let someone pummel his backhand, he served and volleyed even on clay if that match up presented itself.

In even the most partisan revisionist version of history Sampras can't be argued as a more capable clay court player than Federer - versus anyone. If Rafter, Stich, Dewulf, Pioline, Larsson, Krajicek and Leconte were reaching French Open semifinals in the tough era you mention then Federer would have been at the business end of the tournament as often as he has been since 2005.

We'll never really know but Federer's clay court efforts speak for themselves and an honest comparison of matches in the mid 90s compared to these days shows a big leap in overall quality of tennis.

TMF · Apr 25, 2013

BeHappy said:
Federer is not better on clay than Agassi was and I don't care what anyone on this board or even Agassi himself says. Agassi was amazing on French Open clay. He didn't have the high backhand weakness. Brugera and Muster in particular would have simply destroyed Federer's backhand just like Nadal (and Volandri). Federer simply cannot handle even second rate players who can hit the ball with incredible spin to his backhand, just ask Igor Andreev.

Federer > Agassi on clay and pretty everyone agree except you and a few Pete supporters. Agassi isn't even consider in an all time greatest cc while Fed is ranked on average at #7 by the experts.

Bobby Jr · Apr 25, 2013

President said:
Did Bruguera or Muster move anywhere near as well as Nadal? Did they have his shotmaking abilities and mental strength? Were they even ANYWHERE near the same caliber of player overall?..

Neither moved nearly as good as Nadal - especially Bruguera.

abmk · Apr 25, 2013

BeHappy said:
The thing is, whoever won the French was in red hot form. The years that Brugera won Federer definitely couldn't have beaten him, the year Muster won Fed definitely couldn't have beaten him.

Medvedev was as good as Federer on clay when he played well in my opinion. Chang could have been a problem just as Gilles Simon, Murray and Canas and other negative players have been for Federer, as unlike Simon and Murray, Chang could actually play on clay. Who knows what would have happened in 2007 if Fed had met Canas on clay?

Federer is not better on clay than Agassi was and I don't care what anyone on this board or even Agassi himself says. Agassi was amazing on French Open clay. He didn't have the high backhand weakness. Brugera and Muster in particular would have simply destroyed Federer's backhand just like Nadal (and Volandri). Federer simply cannot handle even second rate players who can hit the ball with incredible spin to his backhand, just ask Igor Andreev.

I agree Federer could have beaten Brugera in 1996, but not the years Brugera won when he was red hot. An advantage Sampras had over Fed was that he just wouldn't let someone pummel his backhand, he served and volleyed even on clay if that match up presented itself.

Federer is a great, great player, but his record on clay is skewed by the mental breakdowns of Coria and Gaudio. The Gaudio who went 42-8 or something like that on clay as returning RG champion in 2005 was incredible on clay, and Coria had gotten off to a shaky start with Fed but his match against Nadal in the Rome final of 2005 was simply amazing. He was one of the most magically talented players I've ever seen including Fed. I don't think Fed would have been reaching all those clay court finals if the only clay court specialists beside Nadal hadn't retired. Federer never ever looked like he could beat Nadal on clay other than in 2006.

this is a joke , right ?

federer is 2-0 on clay vs both coria and gaudio ( all matches from 2003-05 )

federer did beat nadal in 2007 and 2009 on clay and definitely had is chance in RG 2011. It wasn't just 2006

federer at his best is clearly better than agassi on clay, no question.

agassi didn't have high backhand weakness, but he had a far worse one, movement.

bruguera, muster and courier are comparable, but federer at his best would edge them out IMO

muster's spin level is not comparable to that of andreev/nadal ..

for all the examples of simon, canas, you have federer beating hewitt 15 times in a row and he is 14-0 vs ferrer ...chang would have near zero chance of beating fed unless fed was off ....

abmk · Apr 25, 2013

Bobby Jr said:
They were just examples of players who did well despite having next to no chance of winning a major. They were like the Mardy Fish and Juan Monaco-type players of the 90s.

nah, not even close ... todd martin and pioline were FAR better than juan monaco and better than fish .....

tudwell · Apr 25, 2013

I'm gonna go year by year and look at each of the majors to see who could beat Federer each year.

Australian Open
1994 - Federer wouldn't be a contender until 1994 (his real 2004). I'm going to give this one to Federer. He's better on the surface than Sampras, the champion that year.
1995 - Agassi still wins. If Safin could beat Federer, then I think prime Agassi on his best surface could too.
1996 - 2006 was one of Federer's least dominant grand slam wins. I definitely think Becker could have beaten him, but would he have? I'll give it to Becker just so I'm not overly generous to Federer.
1997 - 2007 was Federer's most dominant slam win. Again, I'd take Federer over Sampras on this surface, especially in the form Federer was in.
1998 - 2008 wasn't Federer's best slam, but who in 1998 would beat him? Korda? I doubt it. Federer's third Australian.
1999 - Again, I don't see anyone beating Federer, who was actually in great form in 2009 and let his mental block against Nadal get to him in the final.
2000 - This is a tough one. Federer was in great form in 2010, but Agassi is great at the Australian. Like 1996, I'll give it to Agassi to counteract my bias toward Federer.
2001 - Of all the guys who made it deep in this tournament, only Agassi would beat Federer here. I'll give this one to Federer since I gave the last two meetings to Agassi. A fifth Australian.
2002 - Obviously Federer wins this. Six Australian Opens.
2003 - If Murray could beat Federer, I think Agassi could too.

French Open
1995 - His first real shot at winning the tournament. I don't see him beating Muster in his first deep run at the French.
1996 - I don't see Kafelnikov - or anyone else who made it deep in that tournament - beating 2006 Federer. First French Open title.
1997 - This is a tough one. Guga and Bruguera in the final. Both are amazing clay courters. Given that he would have to go through one or both of them, I'll say he doesn't win it.
1998 - Federer was not good at the 2008 French Open, but again, who here would beat him? Second French title.
1999 - Agassi could beat Federer here, but he also barely overcame Medvedev. Tough decision, but I'll give it to Agassi because Federer really didn't look too great in 2009.
2000 - No way Federer wins this one.
2001 - Federer was in really good form in 2011, but good enough to overcome prime Guga? Probably not.
2002 - I don't see Federer winning this one with the way he played in 2012.

Wimbledon
1993 - Federer's first big run at Wimbledon. I don't see him beating Sampras, though, especially if they met in the final, where Sampras would have the experience of having won the U.S. Open.
1994 - Both were in stunning form. I'll give this one to Sampras again.
1995 - Federer all the way. He was simply incredible in 2005.
1996 - Obviously Federer wins this.
1997 - Tough one to call, but I'll take Federer's 2007 form. A third straight Wimbledon title.
1998 - Sampras reclaims his Wimbledon title over a slightly deteriorated Federer.
1999 - Sampras wins. He was ridiculous in that final.
2000 - Federer lost to Berdych of all people in 2010, so I don't see him winning this one.
2001 - Same as the above.
2002 - Federer wins convincingly. A fourth Wimbledon title.

U.S. Open
1994 - I know old Agassi pushed Federer at the 2004 U.S. Open, but that match was crazy windy and other than that, Federer was impeccable. Federer wins his first U.S. Open.
1995 - Man, what a strong tournament. Sampras, Agassi, Becker, and Courier in the semis. If anyone can go through all those guys, it's 2005 Federer. A second U.S. Open.
1996 - Another tough one, but I think Federer wins a third straight. I mean, for Christ's sake, he lost to two people in 2006.
1997 - Rafter ain't stopping Federer. Fourth straight title.
1998 - See above. Fifth straight.
1999 - If Del Potro could beat Federer, I think Agassi could, too.
2000 - Federer was far from great in 2010. I think Safin still wins this.
2001 - Federer was better in 2011, having match points against eventual champion Djokovic. I don't think Hewitt would have the fire power to stop Federer, and Sampras was old at that point. A sixth title for Federer.
2002 - If Federer lost to Berdych, he'd find someone to lose to here.

That gives us:
6 Australian Open titles
2 French Open titles
4 Wimbledon titles
6 U.S. Open titles

18 slam titles

Bobby Jr · Apr 25, 2013

tudwell said:
...That gives us:

18 slam titles

Nicely played. I think, if asked, many players from the 90s would agree Federer would have had just as stellar a career had he come along a decade earlier.

Jeffrey573639 · Apr 25, 2013

Bobby Jr said:
Nicely played. I think, if asked, many players from the 90s would agree Federer would have had just as stellar a career had he come along a decade earlier.

Might not be from the 90's but Rod has definitely mentioned he'd think Fed have similar results no matter what the era due to superior technique

abmk · Apr 25, 2013

tudwell said:
I'm gonna go year by year and look at each of the majors to see who could beat Federer each year.

Australian Open
1994 - Federer wouldn't be a contender until 1994 (his real 2004). I'm going to give this one to Federer. He's better on the surface than Sampras, the champion that year.
1995 - Agassi still wins. If Safin could beat Federer, then I think prime Agassi on his best surface could too.
1996 - 2006 was one of Federer's least dominant grand slam wins. I definitely think Becker could have beaten him, but would he have? I'll give it to Becker just so I'm not overly generous to Federer.
1997 - 2007 was Federer's most dominant slam win. Again, I'd take Federer over Sampras on this surface, especially in the form Federer was in.
1998 - 2008 wasn't Federer's best slam, but who in 1998 would beat him? Korda? I doubt it. Federer's third Australian.
1999 - Again, I don't see anyone beating Federer, who was actually in great form in 2009 and let his mental block against Nadal get to him in the final.
2000 - This is a tough one. Federer was in great form in 2010, but Agassi is great at the Australian. Like 1996, I'll give it to Agassi to counteract my bias toward Federer.
2001 - Of all the guys who made it deep in this tournament, only Agassi would beat Federer here. I'll give this one to Federer since I gave the last two meetings to Agassi. A fifth Australian.
2002 - Obviously Federer wins this. Six Australian Opens.
2003 - If Murray could beat Federer, I think Agassi could too.

French Open
1995 - His first real shot at winning the tournament. I don't see him beating Muster in his first deep run at the French.
1996 - I don't see Kafelnikov - or anyone else who made it deep in that tournament - beating 2006 Federer. First French Open title.
1997 - This is a tough one. Guga and Bruguera in the final. Both are amazing clay courters. Given that he would have to go through one or both of them, I'll say he doesn't win it.
1998 - Federer was not good at the 2008 French Open, but again, who here would beat him? Second French title.
1999 - Agassi could beat Federer here, but he also barely overcame Medvedev. Tough decision, but I'll give it to Agassi because Federer really didn't look too great in 2009.
2000 - No way Federer wins this one.
2001 - Federer was in really good form in 2011, but good enough to overcome prime Guga? Probably not.
2002 - I don't see Federer winning this one with the way he played in 2012.

Wimbledon
1993 - Federer's first big run at Wimbledon. I don't see him beating Sampras, though, especially if they met in the final, where Sampras would have the experience of having won the U.S. Open.
1994 - Both were in stunning form. I'll give this one to Sampras again.
1995 - Federer all the way. He was simply incredible in 2005.
1996 - Obviously Federer wins this.
1997 - Tough one to call, but I'll take Federer's 2007 form. A third straight Wimbledon title.
1998 - Sampras reclaims his Wimbledon title over a slightly deteriorated Federer.
1999 - Sampras wins. He was ridiculous in that final.
2000 - Federer lost to Berdych of all people in 2010, so I don't see him winning this one.
2001 - Same as the above.
2002 - Federer wins convincingly. A fourth Wimbledon title.

U.S. Open
1994 - I know old Agassi pushed Federer at the 2004 U.S. Open, but that match was crazy windy and other than that, Federer was impeccable. Federer wins his first U.S. Open.
1995 - Man, what a strong tournament. Sampras, Agassi, Becker, and Courier in the semis. If anyone can go through all those guys, it's 2005 Federer. A second U.S. Open.
1996 - Another tough one, but I think Federer wins a third straight. I mean, for Christ's sake, he lost to two people in 2006.
1997 - Rafter ain't stopping Federer. Fourth straight title.
1998 - See above. Fifth straight.
1999 - If Del Potro could beat Federer, I think Agassi could, too.
2000 - Federer was far from great in 2010. I think Safin still wins this.
2001 - Federer was better in 2011, having match points against eventual champion Djokovic. I don't think Hewitt would have the fire power to stop Federer, and Sampras was old at that point. A sixth title for Federer.
2002 - If Federer lost to Berdych, he'd find someone to lose to here.

That gives us:
6 Australian Open titles
2 French Open titles
4 Wimbledon titles
6 U.S. Open titles

18 slam titles

pretty reasonable one for most part, but some comments on where I don't fully agree ..

95 AO : would be a tossup. But I'd favour federer by a bit. ( let's give this to fed )
98 AO : korda might edge out mono federer ( let's give this to korda )
2000 AO : would be a tossup. But I'd favour federer by a bit ( let's give this to agassi )
2001 AO : would go with agassi here considering federer was below par in 2011 AO

99 FO : I say federer takes this one over agassi

93 wimbledon : in the form that federer was in 2003 wimbledon semi and final, I see him beating sampras. Those were two ridiculous performances.
96 wimbledon : would be a tossup b/w federer and krajicek. Krajicek was just brilliant in that tourney ( lets give this to federer though, he was too good in 2006 as well )
98 wimbledon : even sampras was a bit below par. basically a tossup b/w a bit below par sampras and bit below par federer ( but lets give it to sampras )

so IMO federer ends up with

5 AOs
3 FOs
5 wimbledons
6 USOs

19 majors

adil1972 · Apr 25, 2013

federer would have destroyed everybody

Agassifan · Apr 25, 2013

probably 17 slams. Couple more French opens, couple less Wimbledons.

Start da Game · Apr 25, 2013

Bobby Jr said:
A salient point can be made here. Sampras was the HUGE beneficiary of having disparate competition throughout the year - much moreso Federer. That Sampras was able to have 6 year end #1s on the trot while often winning only one major shows how fragmented and inconsistent the field was. By contrast 2012 was the only year in the last 6 or 7 when someone was #1 having only won a single major. To dominate the game now you have to be more dominant than in the 90s.

In 98 for example Sampras won 1 major and had a semifinal at the US Open, a 2nd round at the FO and QF at the Aussie. That is a worse majors result than any of the leading four major contenders last year. Nadal only played two of the majors and did better. Even crazier, Sampras didn't even win a single M1000 title that year. He was also the year ending #1 - on achievements that wouldn't even get you the #2 ranking in the last 5 or 6 years.

People hate to admit it but if Federer had it easy then Sampras had it way easier in many ways - just different ones, and over a much longer time-frame.

how can anyone argue like this? your premise is wrong to begin with.......the competition was widespread to the lower ranked surface specialists in the 90s as compared to this era where 95% competition for slams and masters is only among the top 4.......the rest of the field is just designed to play second fiddle to them on the homogenized surfaces.......

that was not how it was back then.......you had DIFFERENT players chipping in DIFFERENT seasons.......as a result the points were way more spread out among the field compared to today's rankings where major chunk of points are enjoyed by top 2 and top 4 for that matter.......

abmk · Apr 25, 2013

Start da Game said:
how can anyone argue like this? your premise is wrong to begin with.......the competition was widespread to the lower ranked surface specialists in the 90s as compared to this era where 95% competition for slams and masters is only among the top 4.......the rest of the field is just designed to play second fiddle to them on the homogenized surfaces.......

that was not how it was back then.......you had DIFFERENT players chipping in DIFFERENT seasons.......as a result the points were way more spread out among the field compared to today's rankings where major chunk of points are enjoyed by top 2 and top 4 for that matter.......

it was more surface specialized but FFS

sampras lost to delgado ( who ? ) at RG

lost to kucera at AO

lost to corretja at the year ending masters

didn't win a single M1000 or super 9

all unacceptable

also , it isn't just the top 4 in this generation, but top 7-10

Bobby Jr · Apr 25, 2013

Start da Game said:
how can anyone argue like this?

My post is how someone can argue like that.

Start da Game said:
your premise is wrong to begin with.......the competition was widespread to the lower ranked surface specialists in the 90s as compared to this era

So which surface was Sampras' speciality then? Faster hard courts? How come he didn't win any Masters series on that surface that year?

Start da Game said:
that was not how it was back then.......you had DIFFERENT players chipping in DIFFERENT seasons.......as a result the points were way more spread out among the field.........

If more players are splitting points across the different surfaces then it adds even more weight to the notion that the 90s were in fact an easier era than now. Sampras needed only to reach a couple of finals and semis to be the top ranked player at the end of the year - something which would not be possible today.

Start da Game · Apr 25, 2013

to all the fedivatards who are still clueless about what "competition" meant in the 90s and bring up sampras's second round losses,

the competition what you see in the form of "nadal", "djokovic" for federer on all the surfaces, was spread out for sampras in the form of "bruguera, courier, muster + other clay specialists" on clay, "goran, rafter, henman + other grass specialists" and similarly a no. of hardcourters......

it's not even funny people bring up "numbers", ignoring aspects like variety, what it took to play on different surfaces......

learn to respect the 90s......no other era was as diverse as that one.......

Start da Game · Apr 26, 2013

Bobby Jr said:
My post is how someone can argue like that.

So which surface was Sampras' speciality then? Faster hard courts? How come he didn't win any Masters series on that surface that year?

If more players are splitting points across the different surfaces then it adds even more weight to the notion that the 90s were in fact an easier era than now. Sampras needed only to reach a couple of finals and semis to be the top ranked player at the end of the year - something which would not be possible today.

that's where you are wrong......the possibility of getting knocked out in the earlier rounds AT EVERY TOURNAMENT was way higher (because of specialists who were ready with their weapons on their respective surfaces) than what it is today.......that is the point you guys keep missing.......making a couple of finals and semis like you say, that wasn't easy for anyone to start with.......the fact that sampras did that is the reason why he stood at the top.......

also why do you pick only that year which barely suits your flawed argument? don't you remember how close the 2000 year end championship was? the battle for no.1 ranking went as deep as the penultimate match of that season.......you don't see that type of close finishes these days.......

Vish13 · Apr 26, 2013

90's Clay said:
Becker was still extremely good on both Grass and Indoors.

Fed would certainly still have his issues with that guy at both places. Even an OLDER Becker is more of a threat then even a prime Roddick was to Federer on grass. And is perhaps the best indoor player to ever play the game.

Courier in the early 90s at his peak was AWESOME. Name me ONE Federer *(2003-2007)contemporary that is as good as early 90s Courier.

Man ... you are something. On grass, Becker was not even able to break Sampras' serve even once. He somehow managed to win two tie breaks in the three games he played against Sampras. And you think Becker would be very effective on grass against Federer ??

Indoors, to an extent I agree that Becker would be a tough challenge for Federer. Sampras rated him the best indoor player he ever played against. But again many agree that Federer is at his best on fast indoor courts. Look at how he owns, in indoors, the one that owns him everywhere else.

Regards to your second point about older Becker, I am not sure if you watched tennis closely then. I was a huge Becker fan and my first memory of a tennis match is seeing someone diving at the net. But in 90's there were only handful of his performances that really had me gleaming. And you think this older, past prime Becker would be handful for a prime Federer when an equally older Federer is able to bagel out the best player of the year?

There's an overwhelming feeling in people who have followed the game longer than others, to prove that what they watched was better than what we all watch now. But I am afraid that is plain nostaliga and it is preventing you from noticing pretty obvious stuff. Don't do that, else you are doing yourself a disservice as a tennis lover (if you are one).

How would Federer do in the 90's?

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Banned

Talk Tennis Guru

Banned

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

Banned

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Semi-Pro

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

Similar threads