Nadal.
AO: 1.
FO: 8.
W: 2.
USO: 1.
Nadal finishes up with 12 slams.
Federer.
AO: 5.
FO: 2.
W: 5.
UO: 5.
Federer ends with 17 slams.
Faster surfaces at 3 slams and a stronger clay field:
Rafa:
AO: 0
RG: 6
W: 1
US: 0
Fed:
AO: 4
RG: 1
W: 5
US: 5
If he was playing in the 90s, he wouldn't have access to the same racket technology so a lot of the spin would be taken off his shots and he would have had to deal with way more depth of a clay field of the 90s as opposed to 2005-present.
Considering that:
AO- Maybe 1
RG-4 or 5
Wimbledon-0
USO-0
So he would probably win a good 5 or 6 slams in the 90s
Federer:
AO-4
RG- 1 or 2
Wimbledon: 2 or 3 (Not nearly as many with Pete hanging around)
USO: 3-4
Fed would manage 8 or 9 slams in the 90s
Both Nadal and Fed's slam count would have dropped dramatically in the 90s. About half of what they have now
Fed vs Sampras at USO would have been very interesting.
Neither Fed would have won 17 slams at 90's nor Sampras would have won 14 slams with Fed around. They would split titles especially at USO and Wimbledon. At RG Fed would have it easier with less racket technology. At AO, Fed would dominate, that surface suits very well to his game.
If Fed and Pete overlapped we'd have some awesome battles but quite possibly neither would be recognised as the greats they are/were.
It would be a lot like the 80s. Tons of talented champions but no one overly dominating because they would all be taking slams away from each other.. Especially if the era contained Agassi, Nadal, Fed and Pete
RAFA
ao 1
rg 4
w 0
us 0
FED
ao 6
rg 5
w 8
us 6
8 wimbledon and 8 USO titles? STOP!!:shock: He can't even manage that now.(in an era with no Sampras)
8 wimbledon and 8 USO titles? STOP!!:shock: He can't even manage that now.(in an era with no Sampras)
Well, who would ever thought Federer was going to win 17 slams back in 2000?
I don't agree with him but crazy things have happened.
He thinks Federer would win more FO's in the 90's than Nadal would. It's beyond crazy...
With a total of 29 slams combined between both of them, how many slams are left for Sampras? Is Agassi going to be slamless?
guys wait, look .. if sampras played matches against federer (federer with today's serve and better shaped volleys), i think federer possibly wins 13-14 from propably 20 matches .. so rafa can't take GS on hard or grass, maybe 3-4 rg titles .. next .. fed can take hmm .. ok .. 6-7 wimby titles (only fighting against sampras) and 5-6 us titles (maybe finals vs. 2x agassi, 3-4x sampras) .. now rg .. i think it's difficult to make some predictions for rg, just try it .. if rog has 4 finals here 1 title, i think he can surely make 4-5 trophies here.
The guy is from Swiss so he biased....can't see past Federer gloriness.
8 Wimbledon on fast grass is impossible with Sampras, Ivansevic, Kracijek and Becker to contend with.
8 US Open....maybe most of them on the years Sampras did not win....and Federer continued till his late 30's. Defintly steals 2000 and 2001 US Open from Sampras.
I would give Fed the advantage over Pete in 2000 at the USO. I wouldn't give him the advantage over Sampras in 2001 though. Sampras was playing AWESOME that year (better then Fed has played at the USO the last two years IMO). It would depend on the draws of course.. The only reason Sampras didn't win the USO in 2001 I think was because of the brutal back to back to backs he had to play before Hewitt which would be a tough hurdle for anyone to get through:
Safin( the defending champ at the time)
Rafter( 2 time USO winner who was playing well)
Andre (Andre who had straight stetted Roger that year and was playing AWESOME)
Personally, I think Sampras played better overall at the USO the last two years, then Fed has played at the USO the last 2-3.
The U.S Open format of playing semis and finals on back to back days is ridiculous.
Why on earth is anyone giving Federer 8 US Opens. He only won 5 in this era, and he would have had much more competition back then with Sampras and Agassi especialy than anyone he had this era. Nadal is rarely a factor to win the U.S Open, and Djokovic has only become one in the latter part of Federer's career.
ROFL.. I have no clue. He struggled with an OLD Agassi during Andre's last hurrah run in 2004-2005 when he was close to his peak. In the 90s and early 00s he would have to deal with a younger Agassi who was much better, and Sampras (5 time USO winner himself) and Rafter among others (Who I believe was 3-0 vs. Roger in the h2h). And Safin peaking in 2000 he possibly would have had to deal with. How about Edberg in the early 90s? He was playing AWESOME.
Roger aint managing 8 USO titles with that field.
Faster surfaces at 3 slams and a stronger clay field:
Rafa:
AO: 0
RG: 6
W: 1
US: 0
Fed:
AO: 4
RG: 1
W: 5
US: 5
Federer:
Australian Opens: 2
French Opens: 0
Wimbledons: 3
U.S Open: 3
Nadal:
Australian Opens: 2
French Opens: 8
Wimbledons: 0
U.S Opens: 1
LOLWUT
You give Nadal 2 AOs and a USO, but no FO for fed? How biased can you be? Federer plays a game more similar to 90's players than nadal, and doesn't benefit from the modern tech NEARLY as much as Nadal!
And you say he'd win MORE FO's with the likes of Bruguera and Guga around? While having to contend with NOT having Copoly's and tweener babolats to begin his career with? WTF?!
I thought they were talking about an era without Sampras or Agassi.With a total of 29 slams combined between both of them, how many slams are left for Sampras? Is Agassi going to be slamless?
Prime Kuerten would be competition for Nadal on clay but that didnt arrive until 2000/2001 so has nothing to do with the 90s. Players like Bruguera and Muster would be huge problems for Federer on clay, but not for Nadal. They are basically lesser versions of Nadal's own clay game. What is funny is some of the same ****s who insist those guys wouldnt even be problems for Federer on clay, will now argue they would cut into Nadal's FO count, lol! I am presuming as it is Nadal ends up with roughly 9 FOs anyway, so 8 is still less than that, so technically I do have him winning less in the 90s I guess, barely.
Federer winning 0 French Opens is perfectly reasonable, in fact if we are putting BOTH Federer and Nadal back into that era, it is in fact very likely. Federer because of Nadal won only 1 French Open, and he was lucky to even win that one, not only having Nadal go out, but not even playing one of his better French Opens, but having Haas choke, Del Potro run out of gas, Djokovic go out, and a rookie slam finalist who couldnt cope with the occasion. Federer of the 2009 French doesnt win if he comes up against any good experienced clay courter who doesnt choke, even someone like Correjta probably would be enough, and every other year Nadal beats him if he even gets that far just like every other year of the 2000s Nadal beat him, and the years before Nadal emerged Federer was performing poorly at RG, why would that change either. If Nadal alone is enough to almost make Federer have 0 French Opens, why on earth would Nadal there plus these other so called super great clay courters you are building up when refering to Nadal's chances, lead to multiple or probably any French Opens?!
As for the Australian Open, Nadal is 2-0 vs Federer there, but unfortunately for Nadal he has guys like Djokovic and Murray who often beat him there. The Australian Open would be fairly wide open most of the 90s as Agassi's dominance there didnt begin until the 2000s, with a number of guys who played well there, Sampras at times, Courier at times, Agassi once or twice, Becker at times, and now Federer and Nadal too. I dont think either Federer or Nadal would dominate there, but both would have cracks at it, hence I came up with a guess of 2 for both. Federer would still have more competition than what he had with his 04, 06, 07 draws to the title which were all super easy, while Nadal wouldnt have to deal with Djokovic and Murray taking him out of the event anymore, nor most years would he have to deal with Agassi who apart from 95 did virtually nothing there until 2000.
If I were as biased as you claim I would have given Nadal more than the 0 Wimbledons I gave him. Also funny you have problems with my post but say nothing about the ridiculous **** who has Federer winning more FOs than Nadal in the 90s, ROTFL!
Because he wouldn't have to adjust, he would be born in that time and would be growing up in those conditions.I dont think rafa would rack as many roland garros in the 90's, the reason being he cant even adjust to different type of clay blue clay and started complaining then how can he adjust to 90s conditions is beyond me.
Rafa:
AO: 1-2
RG: 8
WIM 0
US: 0-1
That puts him on 9 - 11
Fed:
AO: 2-3
RG: 0
WIM: 3-4
US: 3-4
Putting him on 8 - 11
Sampras would definitely take away a couple of WIM and USO titles from Fed at least. Not to mention Rafter was playing well at USO in the 90's and Agassi as well.
Can't see anyone taking any RG from Nadal only injury and perhaps an upset or 2.
When AO was rebound ace in 04-07 Nadal's game wasn't developed yet but he still put in some decent performances over there so I'd imagine in his prime he'd win 1 perhaps 2 on rebound ace AO especially considering Agassi wasn't there for a while and Nadal almost always beats Fed at majors.
WIM Nadal would not have much chance at all with Sampras and Fed most likely in the way along with Ivanisevic, Rafter, Krajicek etc.
USO I think Rafa would win 1 if he hit top form like in 2010.
Federer:
AO-4
RG- 1 or 2
Wimbledon: 2 or 3 (Not nearly as many with Pete hanging around)
USO: 3-4
Fed would manage 8 or 9 slams in the 90s
Strangely inconsistent, because your projections have him winning at least 10 majors, and it most 13. So where do you get 8 or 9 from?