How many years would Sampras have been #1 if he had played in Fedal era?

[timnz]

Actually

Sampras wouldn't win a slam in the current era. And that is not because he is a worse player than Federer, Nadal, Djokovic & Murray. In fact he is the best fast court player out of all of them(including Federer). But that is the problem. Fast court tennis doesn't exist anymore - Only slow and medium. Sampras is the best fast court player in history, unfortunately that game no longer exists (which is a great loss to the sport)

 

[mike danny]

In the 90s there would have been more competition than what he saw from 2003-2007. Thats why.

Courier, Sampras, Agassi, Muster,Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Rafter, Goran, Becker, Edberg is wayyyy better field than what Federer deal with from 2003-2007




You really think Fed is gonna dominate (be handed 3 slams a year without much effort at all) vs. THAT field? ROFLMAOOO... Yea right


Sorry but that field of players is wayyy better than freakin Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Nalbandian etc.
Not to mention he would have had to play a more high risk game as I already mentioned to dominate the 90s. But when you play high risk, the upsets happen more.

Fed is gonna get his piece of the pie in the 90s.. But there was too much talent around at the time to where hes gonna be sweeping 3 slams a year with ease without going through hell to get it

The grass field was 5 times tougher in the 90s than what it was in the 2000's. Hes not going to be breezing through to get wimbledon titles without going through guys like Becker, Sampras, and Goran (which were better grass court players) than anyone Roger faced in his prime.

He will win some AO titles but he will still have to go through Agassi and Sampras to get them. No gimmes there either.

Agassi, Rafter, Sampras at the USO. AGain.. Better players at Flushing than anything Fed faced in the 2000's.

Clay he won't have to go through Nadal.. But he WILL have to through more depth in the 90s like Courier, Kafelnikov, Guga, Muster, Bruguera etc. Thats more clay depth than the 20000s on clay

Lendl didn't do a whole lot in the 90s either.. Actually Agassi probably did better from 99-early 2003 than he did for MOST of the 90s.

If Agassi didn't have that late career comeback he would have been a 3-4 time slam winner


Hell didn't he win just about the same number of slams from 1999-2003 as he did from 1989-1998? ROFLMAO

A lot of reason for Agassi's success was because Sampras (who had carried the tour for 6 years or so at that point finally declined). Not saying it was the ONLY reason but it was a big reason. Agassi probably had greater success against the young guys than he did most of his contemporaries

Sure Fed will win slams in the 90s.. But you can forget all about the "dominance 3 slams a year with ease" nonsense. The field was too good at the time.

why only 2003-2007? 2008-2010 was not any tougher. only nadal came along that's it.

 

[Chico]

How many slams would Djokovic had if his peak was 2000-2005?

Threads like this are silly.

 

[mike danny]

if federer managed to get to no. 1 at almost 31 i think sampras at his peak would have his chances

 

[mike danny]

Agree with most of this.

Fed's competition from 04-07:

Hewitt, Roddick, old Agassi, Safin, Davydenko and Nalbandian

These are the only ones that met him consistently in majors (apart from Nadal)

Agassi at 34 and 35 was proving to be tough for peak Federer. As was a teenager.

Safin and Nalby did indeed go MIA for the most part.

and who did sampras meet so consistently in majors who was so tough?