Federer would have been bad in the 90's?

tennis_pro said:

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).

Click to expand...

+1

Teen Fed was good but no where near '03 Fed and on. The '01 Sampras match is good but it could go either way. Fed played a similar style and a good match up against Sampras.

And for people who say serving to Fed's backhand and come in finish at the net... You guys think other players don't know this? It cannot be a sure bet because once he reads it he can just hit an I/O return winner, or bh dtl to neutralize it.

magnut said:

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).

Click to expand...

You criticize Fed yet he's clearly better now than Pete was in his twilight years.

Federer would have dominated the 90's just as he would have dominated the 80's or the 70's had he played then. He is easily the greatest player of all time.
It is highly likely had he played in an earlier era that he would have won even more slams as he would not have had to deal with the greatest clay court player of all time. Just look at his stats. Its Federer then daylight to second. Take off the rose colored glasses and look at the facts. Now where is that list when you need it.

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.

Click to expand...

This is quite possibly the worst trolling of all time.

MTF07 said:

This is quite possibly the worst trolling of all time.

Click to expand...

This is not a hypothetical Its fact...look it up. French Open, Halle, and Miami. Clay...Fed demoralized, Grass....Fed dismissed, Hard Court....Fed Destroyed!

Deal with it. I am going to watch the Miami Match tonight as I have not seen it in a while.

Rafter has a door mat at home with Federers face on it. He uses it to wipe the Kangaroo poo off his shoes.

What is this, another *let's transplant a player to another era and assume he would play in exactly the same way* thread.

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?

Click to expand...

Just google Federer vs Sampras Wimbledon 2001 and see for yourself how the 19 year old Fed stood toe to toe with one of the greatest net player in history. Just by taking Pete to five sets at wimbledon alone should convince you that Fed's net game at age 19 was already top notch. Had the courts stayed fast he would have only improved in the serve and volley area since then. Also remember he won the match.

moonballs said:

Just google Federer vs Sampras Wimbledon 2001 and see for yourself how the 19 year old Fed stood toe to toe with one of the greatest net player in history. Just by taking Pete to five sets at wimbledon alone should convince you that Fed's net game at age 19 was already top notch. Had the courts stayed fast he would have only improved in the serve and volley area since then. Also remember he won the match.

Click to expand...

Thats one match where he was in a zone. It really doesnt show much. People should check out the Ancic match the next year if they want to get a better read On Feds abilities translated to 90s tennis. Thats about how he played on a regular basis. He would have to play a lot more risk back then as players attacked...hence he would make more errors.....hence he would lose more often. Its not rocket science. The game just had a level of speed and aggression in those days that makes modern tennis look like the juniors or the WTA.

The matches are out there all you have to do is take the time to watch them.

You cant runaway and be in denial about reality forever.

Its just the facts. Edberg owned Rafter on all the surfaces just as Rafter owned Federer....yes its true.

magnut said:

The matches are out there all you have to do is take the time to watch them.

You cant runaway and be in denial about reality forever.

Its just the facts. Edberg owned Rafter on all the surfaces just as Rafter owned Federer....yes its true.

Click to expand...

oh yea , rafter owned pre-prime federer ...hewitt owned him far worse. guess what happened after that. 15, yes, repeat , FIFTEEN wins for federer in a row.

yes, the matches are all out there :

federer vs sampras wimbledon 2001 4R
federer vs henman wimbldon QF
federer vs phillippoussis wimbledon 2003 F
federer vs henman USO 2004 SF
federer vs ancic wimbledon 2006 QF
federer vs haas wimbledon 2009 SF
federer vs older krajicek ( 2-0 )
federer vs older goran (2-0 )

one needs to actually watch to know federer returned much more agressively vs players who SnVed ....

one needs to live in the real world ...

magnut said:

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.

Click to expand...

Agassi won 22 points out of 321 in the 1992 final. He hit 3 forehand and 4 backhand volley winners in total in the entire match. Most of his points won at the net were failed passing shots by Ivanisevic.

My one example of Agassi disproves your earlier claim regardless of his results on other occasions. Perhaps a less all-encompassing claim would better serve trying to make the point you were trying to make.

Bobby Jr said:

Agassi won 22 points out of 321 in the 1992 final. He hit 3 forehand and 4 backhand volley winners in total in the entire match. Most of his points won at the net were failed passing shots by Ivanisevic.

My one example of Agassi disproves your earlier claim regardless of his results on other occasions. Perhaps a less all-encompassing claim would better serve trying to make the point you were trying to make.

Click to expand...

I am talking about his entire career at Wimbledon not just one match.

tennis_pro said:

People like you should get banned even before posting anything just for the name alone. You lost all credibility before opening your mouth.

Click to expand...

Nadal is quite clearly and undisputably the clay GOAT and is a more clear cut and undisputed GOAT on clay than Federer is GOAT of anything (overall, grass, hards, etc....) so his username couldnt be anymore credible, regardless of whether you like it or not.

magnut said:

Thats one match where he was in a zone. It really doesnt show much. People should check out the Ancic match the next year if they want to get a better read On Feds abilities translated to 90s tennis. Thats about how he played on a regular basis. He would have to play a lot more risk back then as players attacked...hence he would make more errors.....hence he would lose more often. Its not rocket science. The game just had a level of speed and aggression in those days that makes modern tennis look like the juniors or the WTA.

Click to expand...

bro, put the pipe down!

abmk said:

oh yea , rafter owned pre-prime federer ...hewitt owned him far worse. guess what happened after that. 15, yes, repeat , FIFTEEN wins for federer in a row.

yes, the matches are all out there :

federer vs sampras wimbledon 2001 4R
federer vs henman wimbldon QF
federer vs phillippoussis wimbledon 2003 F
federer vs henman USO 2004 SF
federer vs ancic wimbledon 2006 QF
federer vs haas wimbledon 2009 SF
federer vs older krajicek ( 2-0 )
federer vs older goran (2-0 )

one needs to actually watch to know federer returned much more agressively vs players who SnVed ....

one needs to live in the real world ...

Click to expand...

Your just picking and choosing. Try throwing up the results of ALL Feds matches in the late 90s and early 2000s when the surfaces were normal and players were agressive. Put him further back in the 90s and it would have been even worse when many of the games legends were in there primes.

When did Hewitt come into this? I have no idea where you pulled that from. He was niether a big server or a serve and volley player. Hewitt at his peak owned Fed. Thats not even possible to argue. He was a little demon out there in his prime on 90s era surfaces.

NadalAgassi said:

Nadal is quite clearly and undisputably the clay GOAT and is a more clear cut and undisputed GOAT on clay than Federer is GOAT of anything (overall, grass, hards, etc....) so his username couldnt be anymore credible, regardless of whether you like it or not.

Click to expand...

I have to second this. Nadal is the Goat on clay. I like borg and Wilander more but Rafa is really something to behold on red clay.

He seemed to return pretty well against Krajicek too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUnpN1Vh0WA

West Coast Ace said:

bro, put the pipe down!

Click to expand...

The two Zone matches Early in Feds career were that Wimbledon match and the Davis cup tie against the US. Watch the matches. Other than that he was just one of many talented players both young and old who could go out early if there was a bad matchup early in the draw.

Example....Sampras VS Philipoussis 1st round of the French. I think it was first round I have not watched it in years. Rafter vs Arthurs at the French. Pioline vs Rafter at the US Open 1st round. It was pretty crazy back then. The draws were nothing like they are now. Rafter VS Arazi 1st round, Edberg VS Krajicek US Open 1st round, etc. etc. If you go back and look at the draws from that era its pretty insane and explains a lot why you didnt have guys getting to 10 straight finals on varied surfaces. Early 90s were worst....sick depth in those years. So much fun to watch though.

RoddickAce said:

He seemed to return pretty well against Krajicek too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUnpN1Vh0WA

Click to expand...

ya see...this is what I am talking about. You pull six minutes of highlight footage and thin it proves something. you can find highlights of rafter destroying Andre from the basline put it doesnt proove a darn thing as we all know who had the better ground game.

Highlight footage is fun to watch but it is not like watching a match in its entirety. Some people just watch these highlight footage reals and base a view off that. It does not work and is fantasy viewing.

I have highlight footage of rafter where he looks like god, dominating every aspect of the game but his matches were always battles.....that is until he played Roger. The one exception was on grass. Back then the speed helped Federer hold serve....that was 90s grass...lots of shotmaking, lots of errors, lots of risk.

magnut said:

Your just picking and choosing. Try throwing up the results of ALL Feds matches in the late 90s and early 2000s when the surfaces were normal and players were agressive. Put him further back in the 90s and it would have been even worse when many of the games legends were in there primes.

When did Hewitt come into this? I have no idea where you pulled that from. He was niether a big server or a serve and volley player. Hewitt at his peak owned Fed. Thats not even possible to argue. He was a little demon out there in his prime on 90s era surfaces.

Click to expand...

because pre-prime federer was inconsistent. That's why hewitt owned him. After that federer , completely reversed it around vs peak hewitt in 2004-05.

somewhat similar case with nalbandian, who was up 5-0 once vs federer and then it become 8-11.

I showed plenty of matches where federer returned well vs SnVers. returning vs SnVers was not a problem for him. It was physical and mental inconsistency.

also till 2002,

pre-prime federer's record overall : 158-93 ( 63%)

his record on carpet : 34-16 (68%)

his record indoors: 80-34 (70.1%)

was doing better on the faster surfaces at that time ...

Yes returning serve was not a problem for him. Winning the point after they hit the first volley however.....

I am not picking on Fed though. It was harder for everyone back then. Like I said earlier in the thread....its easy to return well when there nobody attacking you at the net.

magnut said:

ya see...this is what I am talking about. You pull six minutes of highlight footage and thin it proves something. you can find highlights of rafter destroying Andre from the basline put it doesnt proove a darn thing as we all know who had the better ground game.

Highlight footage is fun to watch but it is not like watching a match in its entirety. Some people just watch these highlight footage reals and base a view off that. It does not work and is fantasy viewing..

Click to expand...

and I've watched plenty of full matches where federer has returned well vs SnVers. I already gave many examples.

magnut said:

I have highlight footage of rafter where he looks like god, dominating every aspect of the game but his matches were always battles.....that is until he played Roger. The one exception was on grass. Back then the speed helped Federer hold serve....that was 90s grass...lots of shotmaking, lots of errors, lots of risk.

Click to expand...

jeez, how hard are you trying at trolling ?

The RG match was federer's first ever match at a major. jeez, a player in his first ever match at a major vs a two time major champion, guess who wins :roll:

their encounter on grass was close and this was just before rafter would go on to make his 2nd wimbledon final.

magnut said:

Yes returning serve was not a problem for him. Winning the point after they hit the first volley however.....

I am not picking on Fed though. It was harder for everyone back then. Like I said earlier in the thread....its easy to return well when there nobody attacking you at the net.

Click to expand...

yeah, so it was an imposter posting about fed vs rafter and fed vs ancic in wimbledon 2002 ?

when I said returning the serve, its implied that it is returning the serve effectively.

look at the intention of this thread. its obvious the OP has no clue ... federer returned far more aggressively when he faced SnVers ... he started chipping back returns more because not that many came to the net. anyone who's watched enough tennis would know this ...

If you consider 3 to 6 in the rankings and a couple of slams bad, than so be it.

abmk said:

and I've watched plenty of full matches where federer has returned well vs SnVers. I already gave many examples.




jeez, how hard are you trying at trolling ?

The RG match was federer's first ever match at a major. jeez, a player in his first ever match at a major vs a two time major champion, guess who wins :roll:

their encounter on grass was close and this was just before rafter would go on to make his 2nd wimbledon final.

Click to expand...

I am not trolling at all. Sure I am haveing some fun with Rafters domination of Fed but it is what it is. I just dont like people spreading disinformation with altered media to support a bias view. Some of you think that Federer would be untouchable (and more dominant even LOL) in the 90s as he was for a time post 2004 and this is simply not the case. The actual facts dont support any of that. Its wishful thinking. I guess if it makes you feel better you can lie to yourself and others all you want. I choose to look at real evidence.

abmk said:

yeah, so it was an imposter posting about fed vs rafter and fed vs ancic in wimbledon 2002 ?

when I said returning the serve, its implied that it is returning the serve effectively.

look at the intention of this thread. its obvious the OP has no clue ... federer returned far more aggressively when he faced SnVers ... he started chipping back returns more because not that many came to the net. anyone who's watched enough tennis would know this ...

Click to expand...

Right. And returning aggressivly would mean more errors hence fewer points won. Anyone who has played enough tennis would know this.

magnut said:

I am not trolling at all. Sure I am haveing some fun with Rafters domination of Fed but it is what it is. I just dont like people spreading disinformation with altered media to support a bias view. Some of you think that Federer would be untouchable (and more dominant even LOL) in the 90s as he was for a time post 2004 and this is simply not the case. The actual facts dont support any of that. Its wishful thinking. I guess if it makes you feel better you can lie to yourself and others all you want. I choose to look at real evidence.

Click to expand...

at his prime, he'd probably lose more of best of 3 matches and maybe get upset in a GS or no, but very few ..

put him in place of sampras and he probably wins more majors than he has in this era, because there is no one remotely close to nadal and later djokovic to threaten him consistently . again consistently is the keyword here .

dominate as much as he did in 2004-06 with an average of 5 losses per season ..maybe not.

magnut said:

Right. And returning aggressivly would mean more errors hence fewer points won. Anyone who has played enough tennis would know this.

Click to expand...

its not as black and white as this. Its true that SnVers put more pressure on the returners because they put away the floating returns better , but a well placed return to pass the SnVer or right at his feet can do more damage vs a SnVer than vs a baseliner who can easily put it back and rally. this is even more true for SnVing on 2nd serves.

abmk said:

its not as black and white as this. Its true that SnVers put more pressure on the returners because they put away the floating returns better , but a well placed return to pass the SnVer or right at his feet can do more damage vs a SnVer than vs a baseliner who can easily put it back and rally. this is even more true for SnVing on 2nd serves.

Click to expand...

Sure and to get the ball lower you have to aim for lower net clearance hence more returns into the net. When you start trying to pass with the return of serve you shrink the court and miss more returns. Go play a good serve and volley player sometime and you will understand where I am coming from.

Its just not possible to return as well against a serve and volleyer as it is a baseliner. Not for club players, not for pros, not for anyone. Federer would make a lot more errors on returns in an aggressive era as history has shown.

Then there comes the whole perspective of the returner. What we have now is a lot of returners who are reactionary. In the aggressive days the returners would have to attack the return. Conners was soooo goood at this. He had tremendous feel on the return. I dare say Rios like feel. Agassi would attack but he was more of a blaster (a good one though). Other standouts of that era in terms of attacking returns were Kucera (best first serve return I have ever seen) and Bjorkman. Those two were kind of feel oriented Returners like Conners.

magnut said:

Sure and to get the ball lower you have to aim for lower net clearance hence more returns into the net. When you start trying to pass with the return of serve you shrink the court and miss more returns. Go play a good serve and volley player sometime and you will understand where I am coming from.

Its just not possible to return as well against a serve and volleyer as it is a baseliner. Not for club players, not for pros, not for anyone. Federer would make a lot more errors on returns in an aggressive era as history has shown.

Then there comes the whole perspective of the returner. What we have now is a lot of returners who are reactionary. In the aggressive days the returners would have to attack the return. Conners was soooo goood at this. He had tremendous feel on the return. I dare say Rios like feel. Agassi would attack but he was more of a blaster (a good one though). Other standouts of that era in terms of attacking returns were Kucera (best first serve return I have ever seen) and Bjorkman. Those two were kind of feel oriented Returners like Conners.

Click to expand...

yes, there will be more errors and more putaway volleys to floating returns, but there will also be more return winners., more errors forced directly by the returns. also depends a lot on the quality of the SnVer, the rhythm the SnVer is in etc etc.

take the example of hewitt, his returning was that effective vs the SnVers though he didn't have great power. He'd rather play in the 90s than in the 2000s because the net rushers gave him more of a target and he could redirect the pace better.

Also - consistently SnVing on 2nd serves - was IMO not such a great tactic unless you had a very 2nd serve ala sampras , edberg , mac etc.

borg was one of the few who realized that and only occasionally SnVed on 2nd serve at Wimbledon.

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

Click to expand...

You guys are so simplistic, man. Federer plays according to his opponent. He chips return against players when he knows they're no good at the net. You won't see him regularly do that against even half-decent volleyers forget 90s.

mandy01 said:

You guys are so simplistic, man. Federer plays according to his opponent. He chips return against players when he knows they're no good at the net. You won't see him regularly do that against even half-decent volleyers forget 90s.

Click to expand...

QFT

10chars

magnut said:

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

Click to expand...

You have temper issues. Anyway, Federer was owned by a lot of players back then including his contemporaries such as Nalbandian and Hewitt (who beat him many times over than Rafter did and neither were serve-volleyers). If his so called "ownership" was restricted to the likes of Rafter your argument would have had a basis.

magnut said:

Thats one match where he was in a zone. It really doesnt show much. People should check out the Ancic match the next year if they want to get a better read On Feds abilities translated to 90s tennis. Thats about how he played on a regular basis. He would have to play a lot more risk back then as players attacked...hence he would make more errors.....hence he would lose more often. Its not rocket science. The game just had a level of speed and aggression in those days that makes modern tennis look like the juniors or the WTA.

Click to expand...

Federer by his own admission has said he underestimated Ancic before the match-the only time he did so against an opponent.

NadalAgassi said:

Nadal is quite clearly and undisputably the clay GOAT and is a more clear cut and undisputed GOAT on clay than Federer is GOAT of anything (overall, grass, hards, etc....) so his username couldnt be anymore credible, regardless of whether you like it or not.

Click to expand...

..............or perhaps he is just a beneficiary of an incredibly weak era :mrgreen:

Another lame trolling attempt. This board is quite predictable.

abmk said:

yes, there will be more errors and more putaway volleys to floating returns, but there will also be more return winners., more errors forced directly by the returns. also depends a lot on the quality of the SnVer, the rhythm the SnVer is in etc etc.

take the example of hewitt, his returning was that effective vs the SnVers though he didn't have great power. He'd rather play in the 90s than in the 2000s because the net rushers gave him more of a target and he could redirect the pace better.

Also - consistently SnVing on 2nd serves - was IMO not such a great tactic unless you had a very 2nd serve ala sampras , edberg , mac etc.

borg was one of the few who realized that and only occasionally SnVed on 2nd serve at Wimbledon.

Click to expand...

Those servers that you mention were some of the all time greats. Throw rafter in there as well. I am not speaking of power servers. There were many that hit serves harder. Great servers dont use straight power. They use variety and disguise and have an uncanny ability to pick apart great returners.

Take Federer for instance. He is very good at blocking serves and has very good feel when doing this. A great server ala Rafter recognizes this as shown in there matches. What he does over and over is to stretch Federer out across the box and use variety and disguise to throw off Fed. Now Fed can blast too but not when he is stretched (nobody can). It also mutes the feel returns as he is contantly reaching high, low whatever. Body serves (which rafter used a lot) are pretty uncommon when they played.

Sampras was not quite as crafty as those other three but is flat serve and slider had so much wieght players had a lot of trouble with clean hits and in the end it well...he was Sampras and he probably had the most complete serve the game has ever seen.

In general though the big servers of the 90s were very good. Even the bombers had good variety and change ups. Now the game is missing that and servers very much use the second serve to get the point started from a nuetral or slightly better position. The great servers of old would try and hurt you with the second and then attack.

Its reallly kind of sad as the game has regressed. Tennis afficinados who love the game now would be absolutley thrilled watching matches from the early and late 90s. Wimbledon had a few dead years but outside of that it was fantastic. It was very much a time when players had to lift there game as apposed to now when its more about who doesnt choke.

Heres something to look at #1 players from the 90s

Lendl (rock solid all courter all surfaces)
Becker (Big dumb high risk boomer headcase streaky as heck)
Edberg (S&V effective all surfaces, poetry in motion)
Sampras (all courter fast court King)
Courier (Clay/ Hard court basline basher, physical monster)
Agassi (explosive, great returner,
Muster (Clay court monster with an iron will of a man on a mission)
Rios (short guy, genius, Mcenroe feel, all courter, all surfaces, craftey artist)
Kafelnikov (um? Great returner, all courter, dangerous)
Moya (incredible mover, explosive, huge forehand)
Rafter (S & V scrapper, Tactical as heck, Gutsy)
Hewitt (Prefontaine/Rocky, mean, scrappy, non intimidated, big match player)

Now take a close look at that list and you will see how amazing the contrast in styles were. Heck even the personalities were stark contrasts ranging from ellegant (edberg) to clownish (agassi) to intraverted (sampras) to all out I want to rip your throat out (Hewitt). It was a very unique time in proffessional tennis. I still cant believe they screwed up the sport as much as they have.

For more look at the point spread in the 90s. It was tight. Players were hungrier and were willing to take risk and put it all on the line. What more could you possibly want in sports.

*Some of those on my list might be a little off the 90s. When I say 90s I mean 89-2001ish.

Sabratha said:

If you consider 3 to 6 in the rankings and a couple of slams bad, than so be it.

Click to expand...

Oh my, not even #2? Goran reached #2, I guess Fed isn't even as good as him

Of course Nadal on the other hand would have won just as much in faster conditions, he would have even taken 1995 AO .

But I gotta say, thank you for exposing yourself, Fed "fan".

You must be idiots to think Fed cannot hit over a bh return. He only chips when returning to baseliners.

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?

Click to expand...

Federer chips the return because it's the most efficient option or easy. In the 90's huge serves were uncommon compared to today and Roger would not have to slice the return as much.

If a prime Federer warped back to the 90's with all his abilities he would never lose a match. He would have a 500 consecutive win streak.

pundekman said:

You must be idiots to think Fed cannot hit over a bh return. He only chips when returning to baseliners.

Click to expand...

exactly.. it's an easy and effective way of returning the biggest serves when you know that the server is too afraid to step to the service line...

just slice/block it back deep. Hewitt demolished Isner this way earlier in the year.

magnut said:

Thats one match where he was in a zone. It really doesnt show much. People should check out the Ancic match the next year if they want to get a better read On Feds abilities translated to 90s tennis. Thats about how he played on a regular basis. He would have to play a lot more risk back then as players attacked...hence he would make more errors.....hence he would lose more often. Its not rocket science. The game just had a level of speed and aggression in those days that makes modern tennis look like the juniors or the WTA.

Click to expand...

Yes he would have taken more risks against more attacking players. That was my point and that was what he showed capable of doing in the five sets against Pete. Everyone with eyes can see from the video that he did not rely on chip returns or camp out at the baseline. That at least addresses OP's question.

zagor said:

Oh my, not even #2? Goran reached #2, I guess Fed isn't even as good as him

Of course Nadal on the other hand would have won just as much in faster conditions, he would have even taken 1995 AO .

But I gotta say, thank you for exposing yourself, Fed "fan".

Click to expand...

You don't know how Fed would pan out, he's renowned for being mentally flaky in the big moments.

Sabratha said:

You don't know how Fed would pan out, he's renowned for being mentally flaky in the big moments.

Click to expand...

Do I know exactly? Of course not, it's a hypotethical scenario. Do I know for a fact that he'd do much, much better than 3-6 ranking and a "few" slams? You bet, it only requires a modicum of tennis knowledge and lack of hatred (or intense dislike if you like) towards a certain player to reach that (sensible) conclusion.

P.S. Once again, you have my thanks, let's hope this thread doesn't get deleted.

i'd like to see if there's stats...

but seems that he's slicing his backhand more so then in his mid 20's when he was hitting top spin/flat shots sweetly

zagor said:

Do I know exactly? Of course not, it's a hypotethical scenario. Do I know for a fact that he'd do much, much better than 3-6 ranking and a "few" slams? You bet, it only requires a modicum of tennis knowledge and lack of hatred (or intense dislike if you like) towards a certain player to reach that (sensible) conclusion.

P.S. Once again, you have my thanks, let's hope this thread doesn't get deleted.

Click to expand...

Jesus christ,how many dupe JV accounts are there? I can think of 10 just of the top off my head.(Sabratha,-RF-,smoledman,kalyan4fedever,underground,axel89,Djokadal Fan, Sorana fan, Federerdropshot,Apun94) :shock:

I guess JV's tactic is rather than spammin two contrasting views from one account to avoid getting banned, he's posting pro-Fed stuff from some accounts and anti-Fed stuff from the others, guy's borderline psychotic.

Fed would clean up in the 1990's. He's the most well rounded player in history across surfaces and is proficient at everything. His strengths (FH, serve, movement, defense) translate well to any era.

I'm not sure why people point to 1990's grass courts as some great unpredictable variable, as the same players made it through the draw at Wimbledon in most years like they do now. There is nothing to suggest he would have had any more trouble with the best guys of that era then he did during his prime. Head to head with the best of that era are tough matchups on grass, but the best players now would likewise present matchup issues for their respective peers of that era.

magnut said:

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.

Click to expand...

If we are talking about the field of today, then who do you think is going to replace Nole, Rafa and Murray at the top? Just so convenient for you to say that only Fed would dominate. You think Del Potro, Berdych or Tsonga would win Wimby? LOL! Oh, I am sorry, you thought Fed would clean up all the slams and leave only the French for Rafa. LOL! Fed is actually quite lucky to have had won majority of his slams by the time the rest of the big 3 peaked. He wouldnt have won more than 10 slams if he was in their generation

Fed would have to deal with much more in the 90s overall than he dealt with when he was amassing 3 slams a year in the crap, transitional era known as the early 00-mid 00's.

He wouldn't have "cleaned" anything up.

Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Courier, Agassi, Bruguera Muster early on to Sampras, Agassi, Rafter,Kafelniikov, Guga, later on.

That a a far cry from OLD Agassi on his last leg (who could barely win a tournament by then) Roddick, Blake, Hewitt, Davydenko, Safin, Baghaditis, Gonzales, Ljubicic etc. Pre-Nadal/Djoker.

His numbers are wayyy over-inflated because of that 2004-2007 transitional era

mandy01 said:

..............or perhaps he is just a beneficiary of an incredibly weak era :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Well he learnt from the best at taking advantage of an incredibly weak era (Mr. ManPurse) then didnt he.


Also funny to see Magnut basically say something very positive and pro Federer about Federer, saying in his opinion Federer would still be dominating at 32 had surfaces been very fast; and crazed no life *******s are still all over him since he dared to concede Federer would win not win every single Wimbledon or U.S Open if his main competition was Sampras and company rather than so called (according to the turds) no talent garbage on all non clay surfaces Nadal and company.