hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Okay. Okay. I agree, Pete is the greatest player to ever "step foot on the on the lawns of Wimbeldon."
But Laver is one of the greatest at Wimbledon.
Last edited:
Greatest mens grass court player ever?
- Thread starter thalivest
- Start date
Okay. Okay. I agree, Pete is the greatest player to ever "step foot on the on the lawns of Wimbeldon."
But Laver is one of the greatest at Wimbledon.
jimbo333
Hall of Fame
There's probably a few mature persons here that have
Have you actually seen Sampras in his prime?
GameSampras
Banned
There's probably a few mature persons here that have
Have you actually seen Sampras in his prime?
Yes I have got to witness Sampras' prime first hand but not his peak I guess. Though I began watchin 95, so take that from what you will. 1994 though I believe is highly regarded as Pete's peak and best year statisitically. But 93-98 was his prime so yes. I didnt see Pete's 94 peak though first hand. If 94 was really Pete's peak. Which you can argue it wasnt I suppose. Is the only way to judge a players peak based on what the stats say? I judge a player's peak by playing level to be honest. Not what the numbers say
Last edited:
Azzurri
Legend
here is something ironic to the clueless "tennis fans"...Pete actually won Wimbledon on at leats 3 different grass surfaces. they changed at least 3 times in the 8 years he won 7 of them. so Pete did win more slams on "different" grass surfaces.
Azzurri
Legend
Please see the stats on pete's serve in W in his 7 wins. Kraijcek was a god those 2 weeks and Goran beat him when Pete was not yet the king of grass. you have some weird sarcasm. maybe its because you don't understand English very well. but its no surprise you don't know what is going in this thread.
Azzurri
Legend
Fair point mate
Although I have seen Laver on DVD/Ytube etc a lot, and my Grandfather told me about him loads as well. I'm actually 39 and am a bigger Connors fan
Still sure that Laver is GOAT though
at least you admit you never watched Laver in his prime. but its ok to think Laver as the best grass court player..he is #3 in my book.
Winners or Errors
Legend
Oh, and there is no point having a poll with Sampras in it, because he wins every one as he has more fans here than anyone else
By the way, I think Sampras was the second Greatest Mens Grass Court Player Ever
Not true. If it had been any other surface, I'd be voting for someone other than Sampras. He was just an amazing grass court player. Even on today's "green clay," I think he'd have some titles...
The-Champ
Legend
okey, then that makes you the most credible poster in this forum regarding issues like this. My mistake sorry.
CEvertFan
Hall of Fame
I saw Sampras' entire prime, his entire career actually. But then again I became a fan of tennis in the 80s.
The-Champ
Legend
There was no sarcasm in my post. I asked a valid question. How did Krajicek and Ivanisevic managed to return Sampras' serve? Statistics show that, both of them managed to break Pete's serve at those encounters, even when Pete was the "king of grass". What makes you think Laver would not be able to do the same?
English is not my first language, it's my fourth. I don't have to be a native speaker to understand the colloquial language you are using mr. Azzuri.
How could anyone forget that 3 of 4 were played on grass?
True, the greats pre-1976 had more opportunity to play on grass (also pre-1988) BUT they also had a lot more opposition on it. Almost every single player knew how to play on grass and had a game designed for that surface. Look back over the Sampras era through to today and make a list of all the genuinely great grasscourt players (not counting those guys from the previous 'generation' who has passed their prime). I can only think of Pete. Rafter, Ivanisevic and Henman were fantastic players but not in the same league as Becker, Edberg, McEnroe, Cash, Leconte, etc. It's very much the same as when Borg was winning his Wimbledon titles. If he'd played ten years earlier he'd have been lucky (Agassi-lucky) to have won one. Put Sampras in competition with the guys I mentioned or up against Laver, Smith, Newcombe, Ashe, Rosewall, etc and there is absolutely no way in the world he would have won Wimbledon 7 of 8 years in a row. No doubt he would have won a few titles (4 or 5) but he wouldn't have dominated the way he did. The likelihood is that, with more tournaments on grass, but greater competition, he wouldn't have been any better off.
thalivest
Banned
You consider Leconte in another league from Ivanisevic or even Rafter on grass? Also Sampras did face Becker in 3 of the years he won Wimbledon, including semifinals and finals in 1993 and 1995.
Last edited:
380pistol
Banned
Well let me give you some #'s....
SAMPRAS @ WIMBLEDON
1994 - held 103/106 service games
1997 - held 116/118 service games (incl. 97 straight)
1998 - held 116/121 service games
1999 - held 96/101 service games
2000 - held 118/123 service games (incl. last 85 which was extented to 118 in 2001)
In Pete's 7 finals(5 of 7 finals he was never broken) he held 127 of 131 service games, including straks of 41 and61 consecutive holds. So Krajieck has the 2 weeks of his life and Ivanisevic who has beaten Sampras '92, Edberg #2, Becker, Rafter, Henman, Krajicek and Safin, played Sampras tough and thiat's all you have.
The #'s speak for themselves.
380pistol
Banned
Rafter and Ivanisevic not in the same league as Leconte?!? I love Cash, but Pete would take him out on grass, and when was he healthy enough to any type of consitent damage??
Pete beat Becker at Wimbledon 3 times, and was never broken by Boris. McEnroe's Wimbledon odyssy was finished in 1984, I remember him losing the 1989 SF to McEnroe and the 1992 SF to Agassi... a Sampras advessary.
Sampras I'd take over Laver on grass. And yesif the played in the same era Pete would have his work cut out for him trying to take 7 titles in 8 years, but how many would Pete take from Rod??? Rosewall never won Wimbledon and is now a wrench to a man won 7 and was damn near unbeatable at SW19?!? Smith and Ashe... no. Newcombe has a shot, but if Pete can handle Becker on grass, he can handle Newk.
Azzurri
Legend
well my mistake, then its your comprehension (understanding) of the English language that makes you seem odd. You don't how to write it very well either. you also don't know much about tennis...oh well, maybe you have other interests that you are good at. Serioulsy, you seem to be trying to agitate people. You are making ridiculous statements and asking stupid questions. If you can't form a logical opinion or question, please go away.
Azzurri
Legend
The guy is just trolling. he has no clue what he is talking about and its obvious he does not like Sampras nor his fans. I will request a mod to look into his trolling. I am so, so tired of these posters. I gave myself a 2 week break for 2 reasons, one was the idiocy of certain posters and the other is the hypocricy.
Last edited:
Carlo Giovanni Colussi
Semi-Pro
I don't vote because I can't choose between Sampras and Laver. As pointed out elsewhere Laver was possibly better than Pete on almost every stroke except the serve and possibly the forehand but on these last strokes Pete could be pretty awesome. Gonzales close to them. Then Borg and Federer tied in my opinion. Next Becker, McEnroe (and perhaps Edberg). Then Budge then Vines (but at his peak Vines was perhaps as good as Sampras or Laver but Vines had too many downs in his career) then Rosewall, Newcombe tied (Rosewall more consistent than Newk and Newk reaching highest peaks). Then other players (sorry for those I forget) including Hoad (at his peak on the same level as Vines, Laver and Sampras).
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
There isnt a player in history who could Pete on grass when he was on his game and at his peak... Except Krajieck in 96 I suppose
Don't forget the great George Bastl.
Borgforever
Hall of Fame
Björn Borg said: "The absolute and only key to winning Wimby is your service return. Yes you have to serve great all the time too -- but pretty much everyone does that on grass anyway -- that's the surface demand. But to create breakpoints makes you win. Study your opponent's serve a lot in matches. How does he serve under pressure? Any patterns? Use that. Practice exact circumstances with a partner. Be fully prepared. Practice until you've returned great under exact that kind of opposition. You'll walk out the there to start the match with the knowledge that you can and probably will do it -- maybe even if you're not your absolute best that day -- because you've done it so many times before at practicing the exact situation..."
Adaption to the actual opposition and overcoming it characterized all eras. If peak Sampras, Borg and Laver et al had collided at peak they would've come up new answers for their respective opponents particular strength.
Sampras never faced the finest, most creative and flexible grass court returners: Laver, Borg, Connors, Nadal et al
They sometimes faced servers with that consistent, inspired carpet-bombing serve that he possessed. Mac 80-84 held serve quite astonishingly at Wimby. Tanner held serve amazingly many times times while he could throw in a bad year or two here and there. You had Dibley, Pasarell, Feaver and even Victor Amaya, who had a very uneven and flakey pro career but he was a pretty high-ranked pro -- among the 100 best players on the planet and everybody knew that on his day, when everything went Krajicek for him on superskidding fast grass that no-one would break him and his other strokes worked to perfection. For a few matches here and there, sprinkled out during the season from minor tourneys to the majors he did Sampras results -- but only a few matches. Never really whole tourneys or seasons. But that's what made his ranking.
When Amaya stepped on court with Borg at R1 at Wimby 1978 it was Björn's worst nightmare. It was Pete Sampras going out to face Krajicek in 1996. Amaya served like nobody else AND everything else worked for him too. When Borg had been asked before the tourney that year he said: "I especially don't want to meet Amaya in the first three or four rounds. I've seen him lately and he is in tremendous form. I am very familiar with his serve and it's very difficult to return and anticipate, especially with that very low, skidding bounce on the fresh, humid grass. He would be the worst opponent for anybody when he's like this."
Boris Becker and Pete Sampras were players who could do the things Amaya could do consistently and better with a huge margin.
The greatest returners could stave off the greatest serve-barrage you can ever imagine and still stand there victorious when the smoke had cleared.
To say that Sampras' serve-strength alone, during his reign, during his era -- which I doubt was the most compititive ever -- makes him leader of the Wimby Apex Predators is just taking things out of context undermining the entire statement.
There's a huge mountain of evidence that proves the contrary to be truthful...
Adaption to the actual opposition and overcoming it characterized all eras. If peak Sampras, Borg and Laver et al had collided at peak they would've come up new answers for their respective opponents particular strength.
Sampras never faced the finest, most creative and flexible grass court returners: Laver, Borg, Connors, Nadal et al
They sometimes faced servers with that consistent, inspired carpet-bombing serve that he possessed. Mac 80-84 held serve quite astonishingly at Wimby. Tanner held serve amazingly many times times while he could throw in a bad year or two here and there. You had Dibley, Pasarell, Feaver and even Victor Amaya, who had a very uneven and flakey pro career but he was a pretty high-ranked pro -- among the 100 best players on the planet and everybody knew that on his day, when everything went Krajicek for him on superskidding fast grass that no-one would break him and his other strokes worked to perfection. For a few matches here and there, sprinkled out during the season from minor tourneys to the majors he did Sampras results -- but only a few matches. Never really whole tourneys or seasons. But that's what made his ranking.
When Amaya stepped on court with Borg at R1 at Wimby 1978 it was Björn's worst nightmare. It was Pete Sampras going out to face Krajicek in 1996. Amaya served like nobody else AND everything else worked for him too. When Borg had been asked before the tourney that year he said: "I especially don't want to meet Amaya in the first three or four rounds. I've seen him lately and he is in tremendous form. I am very familiar with his serve and it's very difficult to return and anticipate, especially with that very low, skidding bounce on the fresh, humid grass. He would be the worst opponent for anybody when he's like this."
Boris Becker and Pete Sampras were players who could do the things Amaya could do consistently and better with a huge margin.
The greatest returners could stave off the greatest serve-barrage you can ever imagine and still stand there victorious when the smoke had cleared.
To say that Sampras' serve-strength alone, during his reign, during his era -- which I doubt was the most compititive ever -- makes him leader of the Wimby Apex Predators is just taking things out of context undermining the entire statement.
There's a huge mountain of evidence that proves the contrary to be truthful...
Last edited:
Borgforever
Hall of Fame
Björn Hellberg said that Tanner in 1975 had lost only "a very few times -- a very, very, few times" and Roscoe serving like mad in roof-top percentages and still got blowouted by Jimbo in the SF.
In 1976 Tanner didn't lose one service game in the five matches leading up to his SF against Borg on superfast hard-baked grass -- losing only one set against Kirmayr in R3 in a tie-break and virtually pulverizing one of the greatest returners of all time Jimmy Connors in what many considers one of his peak years -- before he was broken twice and executed by Fortress, yes Carlo with "cobra-quick" returns, 6-4, 9-8, 6-4. That's how Björn handled a Krajicek, a Becker, a Sampras. Borg met guys with that power many times and was pushed to the utmost when they played their finest game -- and what happened? Did they beat Borg everytime? No, in fact, he beat them practically every single time for six straight years even under the worst imaginable pressure...
In 1976 Tanner didn't lose one service game in the five matches leading up to his SF against Borg on superfast hard-baked grass -- losing only one set against Kirmayr in R3 in a tie-break and virtually pulverizing one of the greatest returners of all time Jimmy Connors in what many considers one of his peak years -- before he was broken twice and executed by Fortress, yes Carlo with "cobra-quick" returns, 6-4, 9-8, 6-4. That's how Björn handled a Krajicek, a Becker, a Sampras. Borg met guys with that power many times and was pushed to the utmost when they played their finest game -- and what happened? Did they beat Borg everytime? No, in fact, he beat them practically every single time for six straight years even under the worst imaginable pressure...
Azzurri
Legend
you lost any credence from me when you put Nadal as one of the great all-time grass court return of serves.
Borgforever
Hall of Fame
Well -- you never had any credence in my world. You should've listened to CyBorg's wise words to you and his review of contributions to this site...
Azzurri
Legend
what do I care about that nutjob? I was talking to you and your delusional opinion. oh, you are extremely childish..
Borgforever
Hall of Fame
This is what I get on Wiki when I plug in the word "clutch":
My Bjorn, how you have changed?
Yes, Hood you're right as always. Björn hasn't aged as gracely as some others -- as we can see -- to say the least -- and his old golden mane isn't either what it used to be -- by that current picture, but still you can see in his face that clear suggestion that he would absolutely click with each and every opposite match-up at hand very, very effeciently -- especially at the critical and final stage -- essentially to me acting as a great clutch...
The stripes never fade on a real tiger...
Last edited:
jimbo333
Hall of Fame
here is something ironic to the clueless "tennis fans"...Pete actually won Wimbledon on at leats 3 different grass surfaces. they changed at least 3 times in the 8 years he won 7 of them. so Pete did win more slams on "different" grass surfaces.
What Very FAST, Super FAST, and Amazingly FAST
There is no doubt that he was the best server on grass ever, Fact!!!
Azzurri
Legend
What Very FAST, Super FAST, and Amazingly FAST
There is no doubt that he was the best server on grass ever, Fact!!!
The lawn and tennis club were making changes to grass as far back as 1995. but yes, it was certainly faster in the 90's than today's speed. I should have been more clear, they also made changes to the tennis balls during the 90's.
jimbo333
Hall of Fame
You are absolutely correct
I just wish they would make the grass faster now, I've said this before, but they have gone too far the other way. In the 90's it was too fast, now it's too slow!!!
The-Champ
Legend
You are correct. I do not like Sampras, therefore rank him as the GOAT.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3247500&postcount=30
The-Champ
Legend
Thanks 380pistol. It's great to know that a Sampras fan can argue with reason. Azzuri on the other hand is...well....Azzuri.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Yes. Good one. Thanks for the clarification.
He certainly looks like a real tiger playing doubles with Fed in that Youtube video against Mac and Blake. The Fortress has lightning quick reflexes still.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiDqx6NM68Y
The-Champ
Legend
Before you insult my writing, please make sure your writing ability is superior to a kid in kindergarten.
Azzurri
Legend
You are absolutely correct
I just wish they would make the grass faster now, I've said this before, but they have gone too far the other way. In the 90's it was too fast, now it's too slow!!!
to us purists they did go to far. But I do understand it. Today's game has changed so much, but would love to see how players handle W with FAST grass. I think Roddick would do quite well (not that I care 2 smittens about the guy). I don't think Nadal would win on fast grass.
Azzurri
Legend
I am not a Nadal fan and I rank him the greatest clay-court player of all-time. what is your point?
Azzurri
Legend
at least I understand what I read. You don't.
Chelsea_Kiwi
Hall of Fame
Voted for Laver my order would be:
-Laver
-Sampras
-Federer
Laver won alot of his GS on Grass (Not sure how many) but I suppose Sampras won 7 Wimbledons with only one GS on grass so it is hard to choose. Would of been a great match. 1st and 2nd are pretty close IMO.
-Laver
-Sampras
-Federer
Laver won alot of his GS on Grass (Not sure how many) but I suppose Sampras won 7 Wimbledons with only one GS on grass so it is hard to choose. Would of been a great match. 1st and 2nd are pretty close IMO.
You just don't seem to understand that in sport, it doesn't matter that the other guy's best isn't as good as your best. All that matters is what you deliver on the day. Against players like a Brad Gilbert, Pete could play below his best and still win comfortably. Gilbert didn't have a champion game or a champion mentality. Against players like a Cash, Edberg, Becker, Smith, Ashe, Rosewall, McEnroe, etc he couldn't play below his best. Unlike a Gilbert, they did possess a champion game and a champion mentality. They wouldn't allow opportunities to pass by and they wouldn't choke in the way lesser players do.
Pete did not have to play against guys like that at or near their peak (Becker was his best opponent but about 4 years past his best tennis)
Honestly, that is one of the fundamentals of sport. How can you discuss anything or argue a point without understanding or, at the very least, acknowledging such a basic tenet? If you can't or won't it just invalidates everything you say.
Last edited:
CyBorg
Legend
Good post. There's a common tendency on these boards to refer to players as 'fixed entities'.
This is a kind of a linear and two dimensional understanding of a person. Eg. imagine a straight line or axis with numbers from one to 10 that run across it. Sampras would be, for example, 9 and he's always nine.
However a more accurate measure, if there could be one, would be more three dimensional, complex, involving numerous variables. Not only for the players themselves, but also the situation - a situation, the setting, involves certain elements in the environment that players also have to deal with. Often the victor is the player who best adjusts to these variables.
Cash was the kind of player who at a certain time and place could play absolutely ridiculous tennis. He would have a volley advantage over Pete, but Pete would have a serve advantage. However ultimately it would come down to how the two adjust to their surroundings. The bounce, maybe the grass is a little slippery, maybe too much wind or not enough. Maybe one of them wants it more than the other.
What made Sampras a 'great' on grass wasn't just a particular skill set that we can mechanistically abstract, but rather his persistence and lasting power. He wasn't so much over-the-top best, as he was just good enough year-after-year (which is really all that one needs). And this really is what greatness is all about - it's reaching a level and maintaining it.
So, player A is greater than player B probably because he maintained his level longer and worked harder to stay there from year to year (or avoided injuries). However player B at his level was perhaps every bit as good, maybe better, maybe worse. We don't know.
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Interesting point. So at what number would you put Sampras (on your 10-point scale) when he lost to George Bastl?
CyBorg
Legend
CyBorg
Legend
What's that you say?
Borgforever
Hall of Fame
Rafael Nadal is one of the greatest returners and retrievers the game of tennis has ever seen -- even including the slower surfaces. He now holds three GS-majors at the same time -- the only one ever on three different surfaces -- a record he's alone at owning (helped by the era naturally but that's not in any way a conclusive answer and can't be used as a complete dismissal, only as contextual detail) and he's returning the big-servers of today (Roddick, Federer, Karlovic and many others) like nobody else.
Rafa's serve is extremely efficient, fiercely focused and strong in it's consistency in itself -- being able to hold serve against Agassi and others for several rounds in 2006 and for major stretches against a player of Roger's caliber in three straight Wimby finals. There are numerous examples -- too many to name here. Nadal's return game here is the where he finds glory. Just check out his amazing return-games in almost every match. They are minor to great masterpieces of creative counter-punch aggression.
I also would like to underline that although I placed a "to a certain extent"-label on Mr. Federer naming my top grass bunch -- I would like to clarify that Federer would probably have done very, very well on old grass -- his game only getting better on even faster surfaces and even more marvelously creative in it's unpredictable stunningly angled stylistic mix of slugger and elegance. The Rogering Feather's USO streak suggests a lot for me against the old grass dudes. He would outgun a lot IMO even against these guys. He's that great.
I also give kudos to AndrewD's and CyBorg's comments regarding the players chances against each other -- and I have still to find a post pc1's written that I disagree with That still doesn't create twins...
The battles between these guy's would be uncontrolled tennis-Armageddon and I sincerely believe every match-up between these King Kong's with nuclear weapons on grass will go the distance -- only to be concluded depending on one single point. Maybe just plain luck.
I think they would be all over each other like pack of pitbulls with rabies...
Rafa's serve is extremely efficient, fiercely focused and strong in it's consistency in itself -- being able to hold serve against Agassi and others for several rounds in 2006 and for major stretches against a player of Roger's caliber in three straight Wimby finals. There are numerous examples -- too many to name here. Nadal's return game here is the where he finds glory. Just check out his amazing return-games in almost every match. They are minor to great masterpieces of creative counter-punch aggression.
I also would like to underline that although I placed a "to a certain extent"-label on Mr. Federer naming my top grass bunch -- I would like to clarify that Federer would probably have done very, very well on old grass -- his game only getting better on even faster surfaces and even more marvelously creative in it's unpredictable stunningly angled stylistic mix of slugger and elegance. The Rogering Feather's USO streak suggests a lot for me against the old grass dudes. He would outgun a lot IMO even against these guys. He's that great.
I also give kudos to AndrewD's and CyBorg's comments regarding the players chances against each other -- and I have still to find a post pc1's written that I disagree with
That still doesn't create twins...The battles between these guy's would be uncontrolled tennis-Armageddon and I sincerely believe every match-up between these King Kong's with nuclear weapons on grass will go the distance -- only to be concluded depending on one single point. Maybe just plain luck.
I think they would be all over each other like pack of pitbulls with rabies...
CyBorg
Legend
I also forgot to add that we often forget that great matches between players are sometimes partly decided by preceding matches. That's another variable - eg. fatigue.
The best recent example is the 2007 Wimbledon final. Nadal coming in on no days' rest - I believe four matches in four days, or something like that. Federer coming in playing perhaps two in five (my memory is faulty here). This was all caused by the rains and somewhat poorly thought out scheduling.
The match went five sets. Turn the variables around and I think there's little chance Federer beats Nadal in that match, let alone make it close.
So, unless we're talking exhibitions where players are typically rested and just concentrating on a particular match, there will exist complex, simultaneous dynamics. None of them can be really understood in full.
If we could diagram it, I would say we would have something resembling a complex lattice rather than a straight line. Something three-dimensional. There's a simple man v man dynamic, complicated by surrounding and preceding variables. Some would say, "tennis gods", but there's probably concrete mathematics that could be applied by someone smarter than me.
In all of this, we can judge a player by his ability to play in harmony or wholeness with the environment. The best ones usually do - Nadal has a kind of holistic relationship with tennis; he doesn't fret about the past. But some other guys react differently to situations, depending on the context - it can be unpredictable. Motivation sometimes arises out of personal reasons, unknown to us.
The best recent example is the 2007 Wimbledon final. Nadal coming in on no days' rest - I believe four matches in four days, or something like that. Federer coming in playing perhaps two in five (my memory is faulty here). This was all caused by the rains and somewhat poorly thought out scheduling.
The match went five sets. Turn the variables around and I think there's little chance Federer beats Nadal in that match, let alone make it close.
So, unless we're talking exhibitions where players are typically rested and just concentrating on a particular match, there will exist complex, simultaneous dynamics. None of them can be really understood in full.
If we could diagram it, I would say we would have something resembling a complex lattice rather than a straight line. Something three-dimensional. There's a simple man v man dynamic, complicated by surrounding and preceding variables. Some would say, "tennis gods", but there's probably concrete mathematics that could be applied by someone smarter than me.
In all of this, we can judge a player by his ability to play in harmony or wholeness with the environment. The best ones usually do - Nadal has a kind of holistic relationship with tennis; he doesn't fret about the past. But some other guys react differently to situations, depending on the context - it can be unpredictable. Motivation sometimes arises out of personal reasons, unknown to us.
Last edited:
Confidence, too, can be affected by circumstances. A rivalry's peculiar circumstances can tip confidence toward one player. Lendl's first three Slam matches against Becker were at Wimbledon and were all losses. In a way the "biggest" matches of their rivalry were played on Becker's best and Lendl's worst surface -- and the first one set the tone, with Lendl, the world #1 player, losing in straight sets to an 18-year-old. Only then did they meet in the USO final, because Becker previously hadn't been good enough to make that round. In that USO final, I don't know whether it was mental or physical fatigue, or lack of confidence, but you can see it affecting Lendl when the match got close.
Similarly, Federer and Nadal played twice at Roland Garros (again the world's #1 losing to a teen) before they met at Wimbledon. And once they started meeting there Nadal still took longer before he lived up to his seeding at Slams on hardcourt, arguably Federer's best surface (those meetings happen now, not when Federer was #1 and dominant but after he inevitably fell off and began struggling).
But how do we picture the Becker/Lendl or Federer/Nadal meetings if we imagine them each at their peak, having never heard of each other? It's a little weird, taking them out of their history like that (imagine doing the same with Borg/Connors or Borg/McEnroe), but it's kind of necessary when the rivalry is between two players whose peaks did not overlap.
Often I like to imagine these rivalries as an old-style tour between two players, because there were decades of great tennis in that now largely forgotten format ("forgotten" by new fans). But such a format makes the players deal with things like fatigue, adaptability, etc. Playing every night on poor indoor courts, scraping for your living, with few people watching, is one way to test who the better player is. Having them meet only three or four times a year at the Slams, with huge audiences, is another. Sometimes I like to combine the formats, with the Slams as "stops" on the mano-a-mano tour.
