Tennis_Hands
Banned
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
MATH fail?
EDIT:Others have mentioned it
Last edited:
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
Presuming that only Fed and Nadal are transported back in the 90s and being roughly the same age as Sampras/Agassi with late 90s-early 2000s competition being relatively lackluster (so not changing anything there) I'd say:
Fed:
AO-4 (1994, 1997, 1999 and 2002)
FO-1 (1999)
Wimbledon-3 (1996, 1998, 2002)
USO-4 (1996, 1997, 1998 and 2001)
Overall 12 slams.
Nadal:
AO-1 (1996)
FO-7 *
Wimbledon-0
USO-0
8 slams overall.
Sampras:
AO-0
FO-0
Wimbledon-6 (1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1999 and 2000)
USO-4 (1990, 1993, 1995 and 2002)
10 slams overall
Agassi:
AO-4 (1995, 2000, 2001 and 2003)
FO-0
Wimbledon-1 (1992)
USO-2 (1994, 1999)
7 slams overall.
* Not going by years but due to there being far more CC specialists in the 90s I think Nadal would have had more injury issues as a consequence of being forced to grind out a lot more matches.
Of course all of this is complete guesswork, heck we've yet to see how well will Nadal play in his late 20s for example.
Assuming 35/40 slams go to Fed, Nadal, Sampras or Agassi in 90s this would be the distribution:
Federer 15
Sampras 10
Nadal 5
Agassi 5
You are confusing yourself.Nadal is being underrated on hard court here, I think he wins at least 2 or 3 slams on HC. The slowing of the USO and AO is hugely exaggerated on this forum, yeah they've slowed down but not by nearly as much as many people here think. In the past 3 or 4 years he's become quite consistent on the surface in majors and it has taken great HC players like Djokovic and Murray to stop him. Both of those players match up better with him IMO than Sampras and especially Agassi would (Agassi's lack of movement and serve would really hurt him IMO vs Nadal, he would not be nearly as big a favorite on HC as most here believe). In fact, if he, Sampras, Federer, and Agassi all played in the same era I could see Nadal winning the most slams (though I think Federer would probably still win the most), just because his dominance at RG is so absolute and he can still challenge on other surfaces, whereas Federer, Sampras, and Agassi would hurt each other a lot on their mutual favorite surfaces.
You are confusing yourself.![]()
I said I could see Nadal having the most. I still think Roger is the most likely candidate, but Nadal would have a chance. What is so confusing about that?
Most likely:
1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Nadal
4. Agassi
2nd most likey:
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Sampras
4. Agassi
Agassi hurts the most because he's not the favorite at any of the 4 slams. Fed would win the most slams because he's the most versatile player of the 4, and most likely to win a career slam.
RAFA
ao 1
rg 4
w 0
us 0
FED
ao 6
rg 5
w 8
us 6
and Federer wins more RG titles than Nadal how exactly? Hiring Tonya Harding. Nadal alone being there is already enough to guarantee Federer only 0-1 RG titles, and add the deeper clay field of the 90s, meaning he has to be lucky to hit his peak form that rare time Rafa loses (since we all know and seen proven emphatically over and over no way in hell Federer is beating Nadal at RG ever, at any age, anytime, anyhow, anyway) most likely he wins 0.
If these two played in the 90s, both will see a drop in their slam count.
Federer will be hurt at Wimbledon and USO.
Nadal will be hurt at RG.
I think 5 slams for Nadal max. 9-10 slams for Federer max.
Difficult to know how they distribute them, but I think Federer would be shut out in Paris, and Nadal won't be winning anything at W and USO.
This seems to be a fair and reasonable breakdown without bias.
It's actually close to mine, although I gave Nadal a few lesser FO's.
The competition was definitely weaker overall in the 90s, but on clay it was probably bit better with the likes of Courier, Muster and Kuerten.
People go overboard with this. No it hasn't been proven.
Agassi would be the clear favorite at the AO. He won 4 times there despite he started playing it when he was 25.
Nadal is being underrated on hard court here, I think he wins at least 2 or 3 slams on HC. The slowing of the USO and AO is hugely exaggerated on this forum, yeah they've slowed down but not by nearly as much as many people here think. In the past 3 or 4 years he's become quite consistent on the surface in majors and it has taken great HC players like Djokovic and Murray to stop him. Both of those players match up better with him IMO than Sampras and especially Agassi would (Agassi's lack of movement and serve would really hurt him IMO vs Nadal, he would not be nearly as big a favorite on HC as most here believe). In fact, if he, Sampras, Federer, and Agassi all played in the same era I could see Nadal winning the most slams (though I think Federer would probably still win the most), just because his dominance at RG is so absolute and he can still challenge on other surfaces, whereas Federer, Sampras, and Agassi would hurt each other a lot on their mutual favorite surfaces.
True, while Federer is currently probably the Open Era Australian Open GOAT, and Djokovic will probably overtake Federer as the Open Era Australian Open GOAT come January, Agassi at his best probably had a higher playing level than either there. Had he played the Australian every year, rather than just starting at age 25, he would no doubt have won atleast 6 titles there.
Yes but given that the thread title is about the 90s it has to be said that Agassi won only one AO in the 90s despite that if I had to pick the surface tailer made for Agassi it would be rebound ace (and yet he didn't even attend AO until 1995).
Overall Agassi's career trajectory was pretty unusual for a tennis great and while it's true he could have achieved more if he was more focused on tennis in his younger days as a consequence he might have not played that well at the age of 29+ as he would have been more spent (even though his late career dedication to fitness and incredible ballstriking also contributed to him playing great at an advanced tennis age).
LOL 5 matches at RG, 5 wins for Rafa, 0 gone to a 5th set, 3 of them in Federer's prime and before Nadal's prime, yeah it has been proven. Next.
I wouldn't say Federer has proved that Nadal can't beat him at the WTF anytime, anywhere anyplace etc
But you're the sort of guy who posts things as facts, makes wild predictions and contradicts yourself repeatedly........blah blah blah.
Well then you would be wrong. Nadal cant beat Federer at the WTF, and I will freely admit that, and if there is a small chance he can it is only since he is so much younger than Federer he has a chance to take advantage of ******* in the future, something Federer will never have with Nadal.
Another idiot to add to my ignore list. This is getting fun, banishing a bunch of you clowns I should have done a long time ago.
You're such an idiot you've put me on a trolls list for telling the truth. You don't even understand the meaning of the word troll apparently, you think it's anyone who calls out your crap. You're the one who said Djokovic wouldn't win more than 8 or 9 slams then decided a few weeks later that he would definitely win 12 plus slams or whatever and laughing at anyone who agreed with YOUR original prediction. You keep changing the criterion for being GOAT of a slam for obvious reasons (so Federer isn't the winner **cogh**) You said in the same thread I believe that Djokovic was one of your favourite players AND you didn't even like Djokovic (that's some prime example of being a moron there)
Too many other examples of you bing a fool.
Wow Towser I've never seen you being so aggressive in posting![]()
Some people deserve it. NadalAgassi is always calling people fools and idiots (called me one several times before in a really rude post) while acting like an idiot himself. Seriously how can you claim that a player is one of your favourite players but soon after claim you don't even like them? How can you do that and call OTHER people idiots? :lol:
I would think Nadal would suffer with his RG titles less than Fed's Wimbledon and US Open titles.
Relax dude, its not worth it. This was the same guy that was saying Djokovic would never win Wimbledon only a few months before he blasted Nadal in the final taking his title and his number one ranking.
LOL 5 matches at RG, 5 wins for Rafa, 0 gone to a 5th set, 3 of them in Federer's prime and before Nadal's prime, yeah it has been proven. Next.
Wow Towser I've never seen you being so aggressive in posting![]()
I last predicted Djokovic would probably (not for sure) never win Wimbledon back in fall 2010, almost a whole year he won Wimbledon. 95% of people, including most Djokovic fans concured at that point he would never win Wimbledon, so it is only the most desperate of trolls and losers who have nothing on me who even try to go there, ROTFL! Would you like some summary of your predictions this year, Djokovic was going to win the French beating Nadal, Djokovic was going to beat Federer at win Wimbledon on route to winning it again, Djokovic was going to win the U.S Open.The only reason I dont add you to my ignore list with the other mega trolls, is in your case you are an entertaining troll who atleast provides comedic relief of sorts.
True, while Federer is currently probably the Open Era Australian Open GOAT, and Djokovic will probably overtake Federer as the Open Era Australian Open GOAT come January, Agassi at his best probably had a higher playing level than either there. Had he played the Australian every year, rather than just starting at age 25, he would no doubt have won atleast 6 titles there.
Good assessment. I agree with this.
If he was playing in the 90's, no Babolat racket and no RPM strings, which means 1/2 the topspin, which means his game would be ordinary. And that serve would get killed on the faster courts.
I last predicted Djokovic would probably (not for sure) never win Wimbledon back in fall 2010, almost a whole year he won Wimbledon. 95% of people, including most Djokovic fans concured at that point he would never win Wimbledon, so it is only the most desperate of trolls and losers who have nothing on me who even try to go there, ROTFL! Would you like some summary of your predictions this year, Djokovic was going to win the French beating Nadal, Djokovic was going to beat Federer at win Wimbledon on route to winning it again, Djokovic was going to win the U.S Open.The only reason I dont add you to my ignore list with the other mega trolls, is in your case you are an entertaining troll who atleast provides comedic relief of sorts.
lol NadalAgassi really doesn't know what a troll is. Whatever, idots often throw around a popular buzzword rather than apply it to the correct situation/person.
Also calling out Hitman on pedictions when he too predicted Djokovic would win RG (he backtracks and changes his mind so much it's funny) Serena would win RG (LMAO) Federer didn't have a chance in hell at Wimbledon (said many times it was the 2nd least likely slam for him to win now) and I think laughed at me saying Murray could still win the US Open final after Djokovic won the 3rd set.
lol NadalAgassi really doesn't know what a troll is. Whatever, idots often throw around a popular buzzword rather than apply it to the correct situation/person.
Also calling out Hitman on pedictions when he too predicted Djokovic would win RG (he backtracks and changes his mind so much it's funny) Serena would win RG (LMAO) Federer didn't have a chance in hell at Wimbledon (said many times it was the 2nd least likely slam for him to win now) and I think laughed at me saying Murray could still win the US Open final after Djokovic won the 3rd set.
Yes, I did say Djokovic would win. I wanted to see four slams won by one player, so why not cheer for such an event. Did I say that about Serena? I honestly don't remember that one. So I won't say yes to that, unless you can prove it otherwise. Regarding Federer, Wimbledon was his worst slam for the past two years until he won it, and many were saying that grass is where he has declined the most, and where he was least likely to win. Nothing wrong with that, I am glad he proved me wrong, but what would have happened if that roof did not close against Djokovic and Murray? We will never know.
Regarding Murray and the USO...I wasn't on these boards watching the match, so you are certainly wrong on that one.
So true. But this guy can never admit when he is wrong and if another poster calls him out on HIS poor prediction or calls him out for being contradictory he reacts like an immature 5 year old child and calls a person an idiot, troll or threatens to put the person on his ignore list. Big whoop, lol.
So true. But this guy can never admit when he is wrong and if another poster calls him out on HIS poor prediction or calls him out for being contradictory he reacts like an immature 5 year old child and calls a person an idiot, troll or threatens to put the person on his ignore list. Big whoop, lol.
Got to agree with you. If you want to put someone on your ignore list, just do it. No need to make a song and dance about it, and also list it in your sig, as if you are some highly superior person. If you don't like someone' posts, just ignore them. Telling them that you are going to put them on ignore is just immature, that is hardly ignoring someone. I don't think anyone here would lose sleep, if someone else decided not to read their posts.
No I was saying NadalAgassi said those things! Sorry to be unclear. He was calling you out on saying Djokovic would win RG when he said that too and the other things I said
he is a big kid for sure, he posts things as if he is THE expert and anyone who disagrees is a fool, then he turns out to be wrong a lot of the time and if called out on it he gets tetchy.
he is a big kid for sure, he posts things as if he is THE expert and anyone who disagrees is a fool, then he turns out to be wrong a lot of the time and if called out on it he gets tetchy.
Agreed. All of those things you listed above really show his insecurities rather than show he is highly superior intellectually which is what he desperately wants people to believe for some reason.
Again, both of you are spot on. He states things as if they are fact, and we must all accept it as such, and if we don't we're ****s. I will give him credit on some things he says, he can say some good things which enrich a discussion, so credit where credit is due. But then he throws in his extreme Nardist views as if they are fact, and its at that point, you get that sour taste in your mouth, and you ask yourself "Is this guy serious?".
I see both of you are on the list...![]()
Again, both of you are spot on. He states things as if they are fact, and we must all accept it as such, and if we don't we're ****s. I will give him credit on some things he says, he can say some good things which enrich a discussion, so credit where credit is due. But then he throws in his extreme Nardist views as if they are fact, and its at that point, you get that sour taste in your mouth, and you ask yourself "Is this guy serious?".
I see both of you are on the list...![]()
NadalAgassi can't continue to add more people to his ignore list. Eventually he'll run out of space because the signature is limited to certain amount of characters.
NadalAgassi can't continue to add more people to his ignore list. Eventually he'll run out of space because the signature is limited to certain amount of characters.
Prediction is fine. What irks me is when someone criticize your opinion just because you have a different point of view. And later find out that his/her prediction was totally wrong and yours was correct.
Yes, you should be so thankful you did not make that list. Are you envious?![]()
Yeah I know, it's funny cos sometimes I have agreed with him and had a good discussion. I would even say 40% of the time I mostly agree with him and he often agrees with what I say and quotes me, but then he'll just turn into a massive **** and cos I dissagree he will come out with all this troll crap. Quite funny cos he doesn't seem to know what a troll is.
I called him out on him always thinking he's right so I earned a place on his ignore list. Which is pretty funny, I consider it a victory :lol: