If these gs finalists played in Sampras-Agassi Era

[Finesse4sum]

I know some of these players may have overlapped but I'm talking in the beginning to the peak/prime of Sampras and Agassi with these players growing up at the same time as them.

How would these same men have faired career wise during that era? How many grand slam finals would have they made and/or won?

Andy Murray
David Ferrer
Fernando Gonzalez
Marcos Baghdatis
Robin Soderling
Tomas Berdych
Mariano Puerta
Lleyton Hewitt
Andy Roddick
Marat Safin
Juan Carlos Ferrero
Mark Phillippoussis
David Nalbandian
Jo Wilfried Tsonga
Juan Martin Del Potro

 

[batz]

Whilst technically correct, only a minority of the people on your list may be reasonably classified as 'grand slam finalists', the rest are part of the group called 'Grand Slam Champions'.

 

[Mainad]

I know some of these players may have overlapped but I'm talking in the beginning to the peak/prime of Sampras and Agassi with these players growing up at the same time as them.

How would these same men have faired career wise during that era? How many grand slam finals would have they made and/or won?

Andy Murray
David Ferrer
Fernando Gonzalez
Marcos Baghdatis
Robin Soderling
Tomas Berdych
Mariano Puerta
Lleyton Hewitt
Andy Roddick
Marat Safin
Juan Carlos Ferrero
Mark Phillippoussis
David Nalbandian
Jo Wilfried Tsonga
Juan Martin Del Potro

Just out of interest, given that at least 3 multi-Slam champions feature in your list, why are Federer, Nadal and Djokovic omitted?

 

[Finesse4sum]

Whilst technically correct, only a minority of the people on your list may be reasonably classified as 'grand slam finalists', the rest are part of the group called 'Grand Slam Champions'.

I kind of knew that this sort of thing would pop up. I know what your saying but for the sake of a deeper comparison I included those as well.

Just out of interest, given that at least 3 multi-Slam champions feature in your list, why are Federer, Nadal and Djokovic omitted?

I didnt really have an elegant way of saying "From gs finalists to 2 time grand slam winners"

Its more of a thing of Hewitt and Roddick are downplayed because they are considered transition era before the others came along.

Safin never truly materialized (posters make it seem like he should have had a Courier up to a Agassi career)

Murray almost always had Fed and Nadal in his way even when the opposite isnt entirely true when they won their first and second slams.

I perceive the sentiment on the forum as "If you only won one slam your a chump" and "If you only won two slams it isnt enough to make a name for yourself"

I like Delpo and Hewitt a lot. Some people say they suck and didnt amount to anything but I feel like its a vast underplay they dont deserve.

 

[dominikk1985]

I actually think that hewitt would have done very well in the 90s because he feasted on serve and volley players especially on fast courts.

the slow court era really hurt him as he doesn't have the weapons to hit through guys like federer, nadal and djokovic (and those guys don't make UEs either).

I think hewitt would have been more dangerous to sampras than agassi was. he was not as powerful from the baseline but he moved and passed better than agassi because he had more rare speed. agassi was probably hurt by his era since he was not really a passing specialist (good but not great like borg because he lacked the speed) and liked to take the ball early and boss people around from the baseline.

Roddick could have won a wimbledon but I don't see him as a big thread to sampras because he was not athletic enough and too one dimensional (just serve and FH). if he had a perfect week he could have outserved a wimbledon like krajicek but to be a consistent force his movement and return game on grass was not good enough in the serve and volley era. I think that playing in the 00s helped his wimbledon results because he faced less good grass courters (apart from fed of course) as evidenced by guys like nadal winning it.

 

[Bryan Swartz]

Yet another complete unknowable.

 

[TMF]

I know some of these players may have overlapped but I'm talking in the beginning to the peak/prime of Sampras and Agassi with these players growing up at the same time as them.

How would these same men have faired career wise during that era? How many grand slam finals would have they made and/or won?

Andy Murray
David Ferrer
Fernando Gonzalez
Marcos Baghdatis
Robin Soderling
Tomas Berdych
Mariano Puerta
Lleyton Hewitt
Andy Roddick
Marat Safin
Juan Carlos Ferrero
Mark Phillippoussis
David Nalbandian
Jo Wilfried Tsonga
Juan Martin Del Potro

There are 9 slam titles combined by all the players you listed. But if you ask me if we take all the slam finals they have played and put them in the 90s, I believe there would be a lot more than 9 slam titles.

 

[Mainad]

I perceive the sentiment on the forum as "If you only won one slam your a chump" and "If you only won two slams it isnt enough to make a name for yourself"

Gotta love this idea that winning only one Slam somehow makes you a 'chump'?

Over on another thread, some posters are busily singing the praises of the likes of Dimitrov or Janowicz and confidently predicting they're going to be the next big thing in tennis based on an odd Slam quarter-final here or semi-final there and both still without a single title to their names! But, hey, some other guy who has actually won one Slam is just a chump!! :twisted:

Go figure?