Federer would have been bad in the 90's?

tennis_hack · May 17, 2013

Federer chips a lot of backhand returns in play. In the 90's you couldn't have done that, as people would serve to your backhand all day and put away the chipped backhand at the net.

Would Federer have been bad in the 90's with that backhand return?

NadalClayGoat · May 17, 2013

There are many players who already expose Fed's many weaknesses, this is just one more. Federer would be lucky to get more than 5 slams in the 90's

magnut · May 17, 2013

No. Lots of players did that then as it was effective. Federer would have been great in the 90s. Not as dominant maybe but still great.

He is also a little slower now and stuborn as heck so if you arfe just starting to watch him understand that these are not his best years by a long shot. Its kind of similar to what Pete went through 2000-2002. The difference is that Pete changed his game up a little and Federer still thinks he can play like he did in his mid to late 20s. Tennis years are like dog years and the older you get the more you decline (obvioussly).

mattennis · May 17, 2013

Federer would have been great in any era, just like any other great would have been great in any era.

magnut · May 17, 2013

NadalClayGoat said:
There are many players who already expose Fed's many weaknesses, this is just one more. Federer would be lucky to get more than 5 slams in the 90's

Maybe against those players from the 90s. If you moved the whole current ATP onto those surfaces now Roger would still be dominating at 32. Djokavich and Nadal would never have won Wimbledon in the 90s. Murray I have no Idea. I suspect he would be outside the top ten..... maybe top 20.

wangs78 · May 17, 2013

tennis_hack said:
Federer chips a lot of backhand returns in play. In the 90's you couldn't have done that, as people would serve to your backhand all day and put away the chipped backhand at the net.

Would Federer have been bad in the 90's with that backhand return?

In the 90s with that backhand return, Fed would have just played a lot more shorter points. Either his opponent successfully puts away the volley or he misses it or he gets passed by Fed. I think Fed would have been equally successful. We all saw him go toe to toe in 2011 against Sampras. He not only held his own, he even won.

magnut · May 17, 2013

wangs78 said:
In the 90s with that backhand return, Fed would have just played a lot more shorter points. Either his opponent successfully puts away the volley or he misses it or he gets passed by Fed. I think Fed would have been equally successful. We all saw him go toe to toe in 2011 against Sampras. He not only held his own, he even won.

At the same time Rafter was owning him. I think the big threat to Fed in the 90s would be the true serve and volleyers. Edberg would probably have destroyed him. He probably could have hung with the big servers pretty well.

TMF · May 17, 2013

Fed's 1 handed bh would be even better in 90s because the conditions suit him well. Attacking style and the ball stay low would make his life easier.

tennis_hack · May 17, 2013

TMF said:
Fed's 1 handed bh would be even better in 90s because the conditions suit him well. Attacking style and the ball stay low would make his life easier.

The conditions would have been faster, so Federer would have been even more likely to slice that backhand return.

His s & v opponents would serve big and flat to that backhand, then trot to the net to put away that slice every time

90's Clay · May 17, 2013

Fed would have still been a great player.. But not nearly as consistent (since he would have had to keep his 2003-prior style) and with that comes way more inconsistency, He wouldn't be able to play the safe baseline style in the 90s. He would have had to go for broke much more. Chip and Charge a lot more etc.

He would have had more threats to contend with around ALL SURFACES than he did from 04-07. His resume is pretty over-inflated because of his domination of a weak transitional era of 2003-2007.

Hes would be great but just not nearly as great as he was in the 00's is all.

The 90s would have been like the 80s in essence. Lots of great players (that could have had GOAT-like resumes if they played in a transitional weaker era like Federer did from 2003-2007. Pre Nadal, Djoker and Post Sampras-Agassi) but all of them taking slams from each other (Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Federer, etc.)

tennis_hack · May 17, 2013

With that backhand slice return of his, I fail to see how he would have been a great player - he would have found it next to impossible to break a serve volleyer, and nearly everyone was a serve volleyer.

Nathaniel_Near · May 17, 2013

mattennis said:
Federer would have been great in any era, just like any other great would have been great in any era.

Heh.

/Thread.

TennisMaven · May 17, 2013

If Fed played in the 90s, Sampras would have fewer slams than Becker.

tennis_pro · May 17, 2013

90's Clay said:
Fed would have still been a great player.. But not nearly as consistent (since he would have had to keep his 2003-prior style) and with that comes way more inconsistency, He wouldn't be able to play the safe baseline style in the 90s. He would have had to go for broke much more. Chip and Charge a lot more etc.

He would have had more threats to contend with around ALL SURFACES than he did from 04-07. His resume is pretty over-inflated because of his domination of a weak transitional era of 2003-2007.

Hes would be great but just not nearly as great as he was in the 00's is all.

The 90s would have been like the 80s in essence. Lots of great players (that could have had GOAT-like resumes if they played in a transitional weaker era like Federer did from 2003-2007. Pre Nadal, Djoker and Post Sampras-Agassi) but all of them taking slams from each other (Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Federer, etc.)

I'm pretty sure Federer would still be great in the 90's. Sampras however would be humbled in the current era.

timnz · May 17, 2013

No

mattennis said:
Federer would have been great in any era, just like any other great would have been great in any era.

Unfortunately no. The reason is not because modern players are better athletes (they aren't) but conditions are so changed towards benefiting slow court players that great players like McEnroe and Pancho Gonzales wouldn't get a look in.

Nathaniel_Near · May 17, 2013

timnz said:
Unfortunately no. The reason is not because modern players are better athletes (they aren't) but conditions are so changed towards benefiting slow court players that great players like McEnroe and Pancho Gonzales wouldn't get a look in.

I honestly don't believe that. They are great talents and would have found a way. One's game is at least partly conjured as a result of the surroundings of the time. Adaptations would have been made.

I mean OK, we could be really deep here and argue that nobody would have been great in any other era because the coaching would have been different. Maybe some talents would have thrived even more and some would have been totally ruined.

Under the assumption that the players get an equally beneficial tennis upbringing to the one that they had in their time, I truly believe any all-time-great of the game would have found a way to achieve greatness in any era.

Nathaniel_Near · May 17, 2013

It's a crude answer, because ultimately what if we throw every great player into the same era. Some are going to lose out and never be great.

jg153040 · May 17, 2013

mattennis said:
Federer would have been great in any era, just like any other great would have been great in any era.

Yes, this is a very reasonable assumption. Paul Annacone said the exact same thing. And he is the coach of two of the greatest players. I don't think there's a lot of experts of his caliber in the world.

By the way, nice word play!

maruzo · May 17, 2013

magnut said:
At the same time Rafter was owning him. I think the big threat to Fed in the 90s would be the true serve and volleyers. Edberg would probably have destroyed him. He probably could have hung with the big servers pretty well.

Wrong. Fed started as a serve and volleyer and he beat Sampras in the only meeting between the two.

And Pete pretty much owned Rafter.

magnut · May 17, 2013

Nathaniel_Near said:
I honestly don't believe that. They are great talents and would have found a way. One's game is at least partly conjured as a result of the surroundings of the time. Adaptations would have been made.

I mean OK, we could be really deep here and argue that nobody would have been great in any other era because the coaching would have been different. Maybe some talents would have thrived even more and some would have been totally ruined.

Under the assumption that the players get an equally beneficial tennis upbringing to the one that they had in their time, I truly believe any all-time-great of the game would have found a way to achieve greatness in any era.

I used to think that. Now I am not so sure. There are so many variables in becoming a top play. Even luck plays a huge part. I think what ifs are really difficult in tennis in general. It doesnt mean we can have fun with them though.....What if Federer won Wimbledon after beating Sampras......What if Courier Won the French in 93 then went on to beat Sampras.....What if Rafter would have avoided injury etc. etc.

What ifs are fun and difficult because the game is constantly in flux. Its why the game is interesting. Thats why Fubaring the surfaces really tick a lot of us off.

The game was far less predictable in the 90s other than Wimbledon.

magnut · May 17, 2013

maruzo said:
Wrong. Fed started as a serve and volleyer and he beat Sampras in the only meeting between the two.

And Pete pretty much owned Rafter.

WRONG!...Lol....Are you 12 years old

Rafter was owning Federer you childish twit.

Federer was also not a serve and volleyer. One youtube highlight does not make you an expert. Go watch his matches in full on all the surfaces. On grass everyone serve and volleyed back then because you had no choice.

Rafter defeats Federer 1999 French open first round. Thats on clay....slow red clay......playing a serve and volleyer.......deal with it. Thats the difference between now and then. Federer was not an Unknown at this time.

He beat him on faster surfaces too. I have all these matches and its not pretty. Federer is a lot more vulnerable on fast surfaces when you have guys that are fast court players. What we have now is the male version of the WTA.

pame · May 17, 2013

magnut said:
At the same time Rafter was owning him. I think the big threat to Fed in the 90s would be the true serve and volleyers. Edberg would probably have destroyed him. He probably could have hung with the big servers pretty well.

Can you tell me how old Fed was when Rafter was "owning" him?

In fact, let me help you. Fed wasn't in his first full year on the pro circuit their first match at Roland Garros, then the next 2 matches were in 2001, two years before Fed started to come into his own... harnessing his talent, honing his skills, and taking charge of his temper and the other intangibles.

You must think the rest of us started following Federer last year.

tennis_pro · May 17, 2013

magnut said:
WRONG!...Lol....Are you 12 years old

Rafter was owning Federer you childish twit.

Federer was also not a serve and volleyer. One youtube highlight does not make you an expert. Go watch his matches in full on all the surfaces. On grass everyone serve and volleyed back then because you had no choice.

Rafter defeats Federer 1999 French open first round. Thats on clay....slow red clay......playing a serve and volleyer.......deal with it. Thats the difference between now and then. Federer was not an Unknown at this time.

He beat him on faster surfaces too. I have all these matches and its not pretty. Federer is a lot more vulnerable on fast surfaces when you have guys that are fast court players. What we have now is the male version of the WTA.

So much stupid in this post. Federer was 17 at the time. He faced Rafter 3 times in his career but all 3 when he was in his teens (and actually pushed him hard on fast grass in 2001 with the score of 4-6 7-6 7-6 - remember that was prime Rafter and teenage Federer).

West Coast Ace · May 17, 2013

One of the worst threads in a long time. Only bested (in patheticness) by some of the responses. More veiled 'weak era' tripe. My favorite: the clown who said guys today aren't better athletes.

magnut · May 17, 2013

pame said:
Can you tell me how old Fed was when Rafter was "owning" him?

Yes I can. Better yet you can look it up. Better yet you can find the match, watch it, and do an educated analysis of what happens. Better yet still....watch all there matches on the different surfaces. Make sure you watch more than one before you claim your expertise on this matchup.

Do this....go watch Federer play Todd Martin is the Davis cup tie where Federer basically made his first big match appearance.

Can you tell me how old Rafter was when he first beat Sampras. I will give you a hint. Rafter was a nobody and Pete was #1 in the world.

magnut · May 17, 2013

pame said:
You must think the rest of us started following Federer last year.

No I think some of you just started playingh tennis in the last year as you have no clue what tennis was like in the late 90s.

West Coast Ace · May 17, 2013

magnut said:
Yes I can...

You said a lot. Without saying anything that matters.

No one denies that it took Fed a while to 'figure it out' - so Rafter 'owning him' is hysterical. Comedy gold.

magnut · May 17, 2013

West Coast Ace said:
One of the worst threads in a long time. Only bested (in patheticness) by some of the responses. More veiled 'weak era' tripe. My favorite: the clown who said guys today aren't better athletes.

Its a valid point though. In some ways they are not though. I have yet to see a player that can effectively cover net. I think the potential is there they just wont develop it. Look at Federer. Hes a clown at the net compared to the 90s all courters. His positioning is pathetic.

From the baseline they are fine though. They move side to side well enough.

magnut · May 17, 2013

West Coast Ace said:
You said a lot. Without saying anything that matters.

No one denies that it took Fed a while to 'figure it out' - so Rafter 'owning him' is hysterical. Comedy gold.

There is a saying on the tour. Three straight wins and they are your pigeon. Federer was Rafter dirty little *****.

Bobby Jr · May 17, 2013

tennis_hack said:
The conditions would have been faster, so Federer would have been even more likely to slice that backhand return.

His s & v opponents would serve big and flat to that backhand, then trot to the net to put away that slice every time

If they served big and flat to his backhand he'd do what he does better than most - block his backhand back flat and low. He would be a nightmare for most serve and volleyers of the 90s - better than almost anyone they faced (on return alone).

Bobby Jr · May 17, 2013

magnut said:
Federer was also not a serve and volleyer. One youtube highlight does not make you an expert. Go watch his matches in full on all the surfaces. On grass everyone serve and volleyed back then because you had no choice.

Agassi completely disproves this.

If anything the biggest trait of old grass was to give average servers a huge boost in apparent strength. It then became a battle of who could get hold of the returns. Federer has shown career-long to be better than any of his peers at returning huge, flat serves - and not all with slice as people claim either.

Steve0904 · May 17, 2013

Delete post.

President · May 17, 2013

magnut said:
There is a saying on the tour. Three straight wins and they are your pigeon. Federer was Rafter dirty little *****.

Yes, because Federer losing to Rafter before he even made his first major quarterfinal means he couldn't handle him in his prime. Get real....Nadal was crushed by Berdych and Youzhny during his teenage years, why don't you check out their head to heads now? Players change...especially Federer, who had a RADICAL change at age 23.

magnut · May 17, 2013

Bobby Jr said:
If they served big and flat to his backhand he'd do what he does better than most - block his backhand back flat and low. He would be a nightmare for most serve and volleyers of the 90s - better than almost anyone they faced (on return alone).

Not Rafter though.

In truth there were not that many pure serve and volleyers in the 90s. This is a myth that travels on these boards. It was basically Rafter and Edberg. When Rafter won the US Open all of the sudden guys were trying it IE Sampras, Phillipousis, Rusedski etc. but they were not really in the same mold as a true serve and volley player. Jan Semerink was straight up S and V but not quite at that level of Edberg/Rafter.

Those who were following tennis in the 90s heard the same thing we here now...serve and volley does not work in the modern game...blah, blah....then Rafter comes out and starts winning majors. Next thing you know Pete Starts serve and volleying on first AND second serves.

Another thing to take note is that unlike now you had some truely great servers in the 90s that could mix it up and were not predictable nor readable. This resulted in less effective returning. This then resulted in people thinking the returners are better now...which they are not. When players are not breathing down your kneck at the net its a little easier to be an effective returner. Players in the current era dont even come in on their first serve. They dont know how. Again...look at Roger.

magnut · May 17, 2013

Bobby Jr said:
Agassi completely disproves this.

If anything the biggest trait of old grass was to give average servers a huge boost in apparent strength. It then became a battle of who could get hold of the returns. Federer has shown career-long to be better than any of his peers at returning huge, flat serves - and not all with slice as people claim either.

LOL...yes and look at Agassi's results. They are all over the place. Doug Flack cough, cough.

Truth is Agassi on grass was a fluke. Nobody had ever seen a player pull of that type of game blasting half volley from the baseline. Also...Andre would make his way to the net quite often and even serve and volley some on grass.....he had to. Heck...go back a few more years even....Conners came to the net all the time (compared to those now).....and that was Jimmy!

As far as Federers returns being so effective....nobody comes in. Not that he isnt a great returner (he is very good) but in the 90s it would have been a completely different set of circumstances.

magnut · May 17, 2013

President said:
Yes, because Federer losing to Rafter before he even made his first major quarterfinal means he couldn't handle him in his prime. Get real....Nadal was crushed by Berdych and Youzhny during his teenage years, why don't you check out their head to heads now? Players change...especially Federer, who had a RADICAL change at age 23.

Thats right Federer changed over time into a better slow court player because he was more successful at it. The courts also allowed it. Put him back in the 90s though on fast courts and its a different set of variables.

He would have won majors for sure but he never would have had these long runs in finals, semifinals, quarterfinals etc. with traditional surface variation, multitudes of different styles of play, and all time great servers.

maruzo · May 17, 2013

magnut said:
There is a saying on the tour. Three straight wins and they are your pigeon. Federer was Rafter dirty little *****.

Magnut, Rafter doesn't own Fed. There's not enough data to support such claim.

Rafa owns Fed, that much is true. But other than Rafa, there's no one else on tour who can boast such claim.

TheMusicLover · May 17, 2013

Nostalgia-**** alert!

magnut · May 17, 2013

maruzo said:
Magnut, Rafter doesn't own Fed. There's not enough data to support such claim.

Rafa owns Fed, that much is true. But other than Rafa, there's no one else on tour who can boast such claim.

Three straight matches all on different surfaces. Rafter owns him. Federer is lucky he played him early in his career so he could use age as an excuse. Patricks winning percentage over Fed is 100%. Whats Rafas?....its not 100%...

Rafter is the Fed dominator GOAT.

Gonzo_style · May 17, 2013

Fred has no business in the 90's...

Steve0904 · May 17, 2013

Gonzo_style said:
Fred has no business in the 90's...

That's right. He's too busy winning in the 2000's and the 2010's. And if he had primed in the 90's you can be damn sure he would've won just as much if not more than he does now

ledwix · May 17, 2013

magnut said:
Three straight matches all on different surfaces. Rafter owns him. Federer is lucky he played him early in his career so he could use age as an excuse. Patricks winning percentage over Fed is 100%. Whats Rafas?....its not 100%...

Rafter is the Fed dominator GOAT.

3-0 is much less statistically significant a trend than 19-10. Nadal-Federer H2H has stayed consistently around 2:1, although the distribution of surfaces they've played on doesn't match the distribution of the tour calendar very well at all.

magnut · May 17, 2013

Steve0904 said:
That's right. He's too busy winning in the 2000's and the 2010's. And if he had primed in the 90's you can be damn sure he would've won just as much if not more than he does now

LOL...Well we know thats not true. Look at his record in the 90s. He couldnt even win a round. Thats what happened to one dimentional players back then. When they were on everything was fine and dandy....when they were not they went home.

And then there was the "Rafter Factor". Federer probably packed his bags the night before the match.

DragonBlaze · May 17, 2013

magnut said:
Three straight matches all on different surfaces. Rafter owns him. Federer is lucky he played him early in his career so he could use age as an excuse. Patricks winning percentage over Fed is 100%. Whats Rafas?....its not 100%...

Rafter is the Fed dominator GOAT.

Good to know Fed owns Sampras. Sampras is lucky to have played him late in his carer so he could use age as an excuse. Federer's winning % over Sampras on GRASS is 100%.

If that ain't domination, I don't know what is.

Trololololol

NEW_BORN · May 17, 2013

As long as you have the champion's mentality, you'll be successful in any tennis era. This is the whole premise that different eras can be compared in the first place.

magnut · May 17, 2013

DragonBlaze said:
Good to know Fed owns Sampras. Sampras is lucky to have played him late in his carer so he could use age as an excuse. Federer's winning % over Sampras on GRASS is 100%.

If that ain't domination, I don't know what is.

Trololololol

If Fed played him on three different surfaces and beat him three times straight he would in fact have owned Pete. Any Federer fan that does not admit to this if it had happened is lying. I have heard for years Federer dorks claim that Sampras could never have beaten Fed because of that one match. One match can be a fluke. Two matches can be a pattern. Three matches and you are owned (Unless your Vitas).

Rafter...three times in a row....three different surfaces....deal with it. I once read that Rafter has a feemale poodle he calls Roger. They use her to lick up the table scraps off the floor after the Rafter Clan feast on the days kill.

Disgruntled Worker · May 17, 2013

Federer used a 90 square inch racket in the '90s. Some players back then didn't even use 90, including Agassi, Chang, Moya, and many others. And we forget the only reason he switched from the original 85 was to deal with the massive spin of today's generation. The idea that he would not have fared as well is laughable. He's beaten the top players from that era (albeit past their prime).

kishnabe · May 17, 2013

Watch his matches from 2001-2003....he ripped returns...Serve and Volleyed, rarely chipped returns.

Federer has 17 slams because he adapted to the stupid surface changes.....he would excel in the 90's but not as much as right now because big hitters getting hot are dangerous on skidding slow surfaces.

Hence why Sampras and many others had upsets to unkown players...while this era top 4 rarely lose before the semies because they can play a consistent surface style and if OP gets hot he usually runs out of steam because the slow surface saps the pace of the ball. It takes more effort to hit winners...op will eventually gettired and the top 4 who are superiorly fit will survive.

Mind my grammatical mistakes....just came from 4 good hour s of tennis.....and annoyed by the stupid assumptions.

monfed · May 17, 2013

West Coast Ace said:
One of the worst threads in a long time. Only bested (in patheticness) by some of the responses. More veiled 'weak era' tripe. My favorite: the clown who said guys today aren't better athletes.

QFT. Another failed attempt to mask a weak era thread.(that too the 90s where Fed would be even more successful).

magnut · May 17, 2013

I like Federer to guys but this has gotten to a point where many of you have just become like sick meth heads living in a trailor park.

Federer in the 90s would have never wons this many slams. Rafter alone would have seen to that......As would Edberg.

He would own Sargis Sargisian though. That I can say for sure.

Also...Gimelstob, and David Wheaton would have struggled against him. Wheaton is a toss up

Federer would have been bad in the 90's?

Banned

Banned

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

Talk Tennis Guru

Banned

Banned

Banned

Nathaniel_Near

Guest

Banned

Bionic Poster

Legend

Nathaniel_Near

Guest

Nathaniel_Near

Guest

G.O.A.T.

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Professional

Talk Tennis Guru

monfed

Guest

Hall of Fame

Similar threads