Federer would have been bad in the 90's?

[tennis_pro]

Fed would have to deal with much more in the 90s overall than he deal 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.

Ok we already know what you think, posted 10 times in this thread already.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

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.

I don't even know who "JV" is, or "***" for that matter, and I invite any moderating staff to compare my IP address with theirs for validation of that fact. And no, don't bring proxies into it as you can detect who and who isn't using one.

As for "zagor" I have nothing more to say to you. I am entitled to my opinion, you are entitled to yours. Federer did well during this current era as he has grown up in a different time and was playing against different players.

Pete Sampras, prime/peak Agassi and many other threats on grass and hardcourt would play a big factor in his career. I never said he wouldn't win anything, but one would have to assume that Federer would apply the same strategy he did in the 2000s in the 90s. I doubt he could do that and would have to resort to a more S&V type game. I can see him having a Rafter like career even, but nothing more than that as the competition on his favorite surfaces was much greater than when he dominated. That is not taking anything away from what he won, he was just fortunate enough not to play against the likes of Pete and Andre.

 

[zagor]

As for "zagor" I have nothing more to say to you. I am entitled to my opinion, you are entitled to yours.

Except that your opinion is as valid as someone saying Coria has the best serve in the history of tennis.

No one, but the people sharing your intense hatred for Federer and/or who have no real understand of the game to speak of would agree with you.

The fact that you once claimed you were a Fed fan makes this all the more hilarious.

Federer did well during this current era as he has grown up in a different time and was playing against different players.

Fed didn't do merely will in the current era, Hewitt for example did "well" in this era, Fed did fantastic.

Pete Sampras, prime/peak Agassi and many other threats on grass and hardcourt would play a big factor in his career.

First of all, Agassi's peak is hard to define, this is the player who won the bulk of his slams at the age of 29.

Secondly, there are threats in any era and no none of them would be enough to keep someone of Fed's caliber of player at maximum 2 slams.

I never said he wouldn't win anything

Yes, of course, you just claimed that a 17 slam winner, a player widely recognized as an all time tennis great would never go beyond #3 in the rankings (keeping in mind that Muster, Kafelnikov and Rios reached #1 in the 90s and Goran reached #2) and would win max 2 slams.

Yes, I'm still laughing, one of the funniest things I've ever read here, actually scratch that, it is the funniest thing I ever read here.

but one would have to assume that Federer would apply the same strategy he did in the 2000s in the 90s. I doubt he could do that and would have to resort to a more S&V type game.

You do realize that there were still plenty of baseliners in the 90s that had more than their fair share of success? He would be more of an all-courter but his baseline game would have still one of the best around.

I can see him having a Rafter like career even, but nothing more than that as the competition on his favorite surfaces was much greater than when he dominated.

Even Rafter type career? Are you sure? That's quite generous of you.

P.S. Rafter reached #1.

That is not taking anything away from what he won.

Of course not :lol:

he was just fortunate enough not to play against the likes of Pete and Andre.

Nah, they were fortunate enough Fed wasn't around in the 90s.

 

[TMF]

As for "zagor" I have nothing more to say to you. I am entitled to my opinion, you are entitled to yours. Federer did well during this current era as he has grown up in a different time and was playing against different players.

Pete Sampras, prime/peak Agassi and many other threats on grass and hardcourt would play a big factor in his career. I never said he wouldn't win anything, but one would have to assume that Federer would apply the same strategy he did in the 2000s in the 90s. I doubt he could do that and would have to resort to a more S&V type game. I can see him having a Rafter like career even, but nothing more than that as the competition on his favorite surfaces was much greater than when he dominated. That is not taking anything away from what he won, he was just fortunate enough not to play against the likes of Pete and Andre.

You are entitled to your opnion but everyone has the right to disagree with you and will quote you. I doesn't matter if you bellieve Fed win 25 or 0 slam in the 90s, this is a tennis forum and and other people will respond to you. Especially if your prediction is FAR from reality due to your extreme biased, it's more likely you'll get a respond from other people.

 

[jg153040]

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

Well you are about half right. Actually all other eras between Laver and Federer have transitional champions. Their stats are inflated because they were avoiding The two Goats.

I mean past prime papa Federer changing diapers shows up just for fun to take away nr.1 from Nadal and Djoker.
Nadal is better than Borg. Djokovic is like Agassi. Imagine what Laver and Fedex woud do in other eras lol. I mean papa Laver won 2nd CYGS for Christ's Sake.

And they're friends. They would also dominate doubles. Mentally broken Federer after losing to Blake won 2008 Olympic doubled gold. They would own doubles.

Just using ur logic. It is fun hehe.

 

[Chanwan]

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.

Rafter and Fed met 3 times, the first time at RG, when Fed was still 17. He won the first, then got destroyed. Second in 2001, Miami. got a beating. third one Halle, 2001. Fed still very, very far from his peak, but lost the second and third in tiebreaks. as tight as it gets.

And how in the world would edberg have been destroying Fed, when Pete wasn't in 2001?

 

[Chanwan]

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.

you've never seen him hit a backhand return with topspin? if the slice was killing him, don't you think he would opt for the topspin more often?? or go for placement? seriously!

 

[Chanwan]

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

never mind that Fed was 17, 19 and 19 and lost the last one by a few points in the breaker? you cannot be serious

 

[Chanwan]

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.

Nah - rafa raced to 6-1, Fed caught up a bit to 6-8 and then Rafa has a long sustained run from 2008 onwards, though I think the last five matches or so have gone only 3-2 to Rafa.

 

[Chanwan]

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.

I cannot judge, whether
a) you're a complete ..... or
b) just having a laugh, while stirring up the pot.

I have to believe the latter - again, Fed was 17 for most of 1999. It was his first real year on tour. And Fed being one-dimensional? now there's a first for everything.....

 

[magnut]

Rafter and Fed met 3 times, the first time at RG, when Fed was still 17. He won the first, then got destroyed. Second in 2001, Miami. got a beating. third one Halle, 2001. Fed still very, very far from his peak, but lost the second and third in tiebreaks. as tight as it gets.

And how in the world would edberg have been destroying Fed, when Pete wasn't in 2001?

Edberg and Sampras played nothing alike. Edberg was a shark out there.

2001 Pete was a shell of what he once was and Fed still barely beat him, even when in a zone. Pete was not even that great of a pure serve and volleyer ( hes kind of sloppy) . He was a pure server. A win is a win though. Ask Rafter. The only great pure serve and volleyer Roger faced was Rafter and he owned him. Rafter was a hack compared to Edberg. That style has been pushed out for a variety of reasons but it will come back when an athletic enough player can pull it off. Federer is not one of them (zero net game).

Multi surface variation against 90s era competition Fed would not dominate like he has done. Take this era we have now and put them on those surfaces and Fed would likely still be #1. He would own Wimbledon and the US Open. Against 90s competition no way.

Its actually pretty amazing that Pete was able to dominate the rankings like he did for so long in the 90s. He faced some truely great players all with different styles. Wimbledon kind of saved him I guess as far as the rankings go. The competition then was so deep and the point spread so broad that 1 major and some smaller titles was often enough to get you #1 status.

 

[magnut]

I cannot judge, whether
a) you're a complete ..... or
b) just having a laugh, while stirring up the pot.

I have to believe the latter - again, Fed was 17 for most of 1999. It was his first real year on tour. And Fed being one-dimensional? now there's a first for everything.....

Hes a back court player. Only in this era of clay court tennis on every surface would he be considered an all courter. Chang would be coinsidered a net rusher in the era!

I dont want to here these excuses about Federers age. Look at Change winning the French open, Hewits rise to power, Wilander, OPete Beating defending Champ Wilander 1989 US Open, etc. etc. Rafter was still owning him is 2001.

If your going to make these big claims that nobody would touch Federer from that era and he would have over twenty majors he is going to have to dominate his entire career. He could not even get out of the first week back then.

All you have to do is go back and look at the History. Its all there. These are real results not something made up. The level playing then and what we have now are very very different. Ferrer and Murray would not even be top ten. Ferrer would be another Berasettegi.

 

[bjsnider]

Its actually pretty amazing that Pete was able to dominate the rankings like he did for so long in the 90s. He faced some truely great players all with different styles. Wimbledon kind of saved him I guess as far as the rankings go. The competition then was so deep and the point spread so broad that 1 major and some smaller titles was often enough to get you #1 status.

And yet even though you say it required fewer victories Sampras is the only player to have finished as the year-end world number one for six consecutive years. If it required fewer victories to dominate the rankings it should have been more competitive than it was. One explanation for your amazement at Sampras' dominance is that you are underrating Pete Sampras.

 

[Chanwan]

Hes a back court player. Only in this era of clay court tennis on every surface would he be considered an all courter. Chang would be coinsidered a net rusher in the era!

I dont want to here these excuses about Federers age. Look at Change winning the French open, Hewits rise to power, Wilander, OPete Beating defending Champ Wilander 1989 US Open, etc. etc. Rafter was still owning him is 2001.

If your going to make these big claims that nobody would touch Federer from that era and he would have over twenty majors he is going to have to dominate his entire career. He could not even get out of the first week back then.

All you have to do is go back and look at the History. Its all there. These are real results not something made up. The level playing then and what we have now are very very different. Ferrer and Murray would not even be top ten. Ferrer would be another Berasettegi.

1. He was much more of an all court player in his early years and probably would have remained so had he played in the 90's. Still - you called him one-dimensional. That's as far from it as you'll ever get.

2. Of course not - age doesn't matter in tennis. Not at all. And all players mature at exactly the same age.

3. I've never said anything remotely close to that. I've merely pointed out your faulty (or completely missing) logic.

 

[Chanwan]

Edberg and Sampras played nothing alike. Edberg was a shark out there.

2001 Pete was a shell of what he once was and Fed still barely beat him, even when in a zone. Pete was not even that great of a pure serve and volleyer ( hes kind of sloppy) . He was a pure server. A win is a win though. Ask Rafter. The only great pure serve and volleyer Roger faced was Rafter and he owned him. Rafter was a hack compared to Edberg. That style has been pushed out for a variety of reasons but it will come back when an athletic enough player can pull it off. Federer is not one of them (zero net game).

Multi surface variation against 90s era competition Fed would not dominate like he has done. Take this era we have now and put them on those surfaces and Fed would likely still be #1. He would own Wimbledon and the US Open. Against 90s competition no way.

Its actually pretty amazing that Pete was able to dominate the rankings like he did for so long in the 90s. He faced some truely great players all with different styles. Wimbledon kind of saved him I guess as far as the rankings go. The competition then was so deep and the point spread so broad that 1 major and some smaller titles was often enough to get you #1 status.

Pete could dominate Wimbledon completely and be very dominant at the US Open, yet it would be completely impossible for Fed (or any other player for that matter, because the 90's couldn't be dominated (except that Pete pretty much did for five years)?
And what does Edberg have that would trouble Fed? Bear in mind, he won his last slam in 91. Not exactly a big threat to the 90's players.
Rafter and Edberg won a combined 5 out of the 40 available slams in the 90's.

So even if you were right (which you're not) that Fed would stand no chance against those two, it does't have a big impact on his slam results as they weren't exactly 90's giants.

 

[magnut]

1. He was much more of an all court player in his early years and probably would have remained so had he played in the 90's. Still - you called him one-dimensional. That's as far from it as you'll ever get.

2. Of course not - age doesn't matter in tennis. Not at all. And all players mature at exactly the same age.

3. I've never said anything remotely close to that. I've merely pointed out your faulty (or completely missing) logic.

Non of this has any relevance at all.

Yes he was more of an all court player earlier in his career and lost more. In the end he could not consistently do it against the great players so he had to simplify things and play back court. The surface changes only helped that. Until he started running into Nadal. Up until that point he was the best back court player in the game. He has become a one dimensional player.

He was going out in first rounds even after maturing winning some big matches. Who did he loose to first round at the French after beating Safin in Hamburg to win the title? Once again...look at the results.

You can throw insults all you want but if your not going to bring anything to the discussion why do you post....some sort of troll thing?

 

[Chanwan]

Non of this has any relevance at all.

Yes he was more of an all court player earlier in his career and lost more. In the end he could not consistently do it against the great players so he had to simplify things and play back court. The surface changes only helped that. Until he started running into Nadal. Up until that point he was the best back court player in the game. He has become a one dimensional player.

He was going out in first rounds even after maturing winning some big matches. Who did he loose to first round at the French after beating Safin in Hamburg to win the title? Once again...look at the results.

You can throw insults all you want but if your not going to bring anything to the discussion why do you post....some sort of troll thing?

I give up - you are so much better at trolling. And I still don't believe you're serious - just stirring up the pot. Congrats, you succeeded.

 

[MTF07]

LOL @ saying Fed would have a Rafter career in the 90s.

Some of the most insane, absolutely hilarious things have been said in this thread.

 

[magnut]

And yet even though you say it required fewer victories Sampras is the only player to have finished as the year-end world number one for six consecutive years. If it required fewer victories to dominate the rankings it should have been more competitive than it was. One explanation for your amazement at Sampras' dominance is that you are underrating Pete Sampras.

I dont think I underate him at all. Its almost in-human to be consistantly #1 considering that era. Even Pete had some early round losses.

 

[MTF07]

I dont think I underate him at all. Its almost in-human to be consistantly #1 considering that era. Even Pete had some early round losses.

That era saw some remarkably mediocre players rise to the number one ranking. It wasn't some golden era. That would be the mid 80s.