If you had to send 1 Male Tennis Player to the 1990s to win the channel slam (W+FO in the same year) then who would he be?
- Thread starter Sunny014
- Start date
Sunny014
Legend
Sunny014
Legend
Aabye5
G.O.A.T.
Potentially, but I think he needs more time to adjust. So maybe if you gave him several years in the 90s.
Thriller
Hall of Fame
Amazing how incompetent Federer is to lose 2/3 of his matches against a player who doesn't have a serve ....
Sampras didn't eat Andre alive in 92? Neither did Ivanisevic. And Andre has a serve? Since when?
Aabye5
G.O.A.T.
Well, RG is in the bag for Rafa. No one in the 90s can touch him. On grass, I think he still reaches the final, bad knees and all. But yes, Sampras would likely destroy him in the final.
Sunny014
Legend
On fast grass Nadal won't be able to even take a set off Federer
So Fed lost 2/3rd of his matches vs nadal on grass ??? Is it ?? You r involving clay in grass conversation
Sunny014
Legend
Pete already lived in the 90s and was "clueless" on clay
Thriller
Hall of Fame
That's not in the title.
No one is beating Pete 93 - 95. Nadal (2008) in '96 would work. Krajicek can take out Sampras. Nadal can take out Washington and bamboozle the Dutchman in the final. Obviously he'd be a lock for the FO. No one from the 90s could live with 2008 Nadal on clay.
Aabye5
G.O.A.T.
No, he would reach the finals. Goran and Tiger Tim and Rafter are no match for young Rafa. Now, old Rafa is a different story.
Kralingen
Talk Tennis Guru
Pete only chose to be bad on clay because he wanted to rest up for Wimbledon.
His peak level could smoke any competitors.
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
Kyle Edmund
Aabye5
G.O.A.T.
Lol
Sunny014
Legend
Tiger Tim is not a joke, he hasn't made all those semi finals just like that. In 2001 he took out young Roger who had beaten Pete.
Goran in 90s used to hit aces with pinpoint precision, you think he won't be aceing Nadal all day? Nadal would be standing far from the baseline and Goran would be toying with him
Sunny014
Legend
Pete has a 30% win % on clay vs Top 10 opponents, lowest for all the top ATGs and his top 5 win% is 0 because he was so horrible that he never faced anyone ranked that high
Jack the Hack
Hall of Fame
Federer was the first person that popped in my mind, with his 5 French Open finals with 1 title and his 12 Wimbledon finals with 8 titles. At his peak self, it seems he'd have the versatility to go from the clay to fast 90s grass and win both.
That said, I'm kinda' shocked nobody had voted for Djokovic at the time I am composing this, given that Novak has 2 French titles in 6 finals and 6 Wimbledon titles in 7 finals, and is likely to go down as the undisputed GOAT by the time his career is done.
That said, I'm kinda' shocked nobody had voted for Djokovic at the time I am composing this, given that Novak has 2 French titles in 6 finals and 6 Wimbledon titles in 7 finals, and is likely to go down as the undisputed GOAT by the time his career is done.
Amen786
Semi-Pro
Roger Federer.
Sunny014
Legend
Novak fans will arrive soon
Aabye5
G.O.A.T.
I love Tiger Tim and Goran, but no. Nadal would do the same to Goran what he did to Karlovic in Shanghai. Is Shanghai fast?
And Timmy doesn't slice as well as Roger. Rafa's groundstrokes and serve wouldn't kick so high, but as we know he can flatten it out. A flat forehand to the backhand?
Look at Tim's win against Roger, which you mention in your post. Roger feasts on Tim's serve, and he's not as good a returner as Rafa. Rafa would make mincemeat of Tim's service games (and don't even get me started on Novak). The trick then becomes serving it wide enough to control the net. Tim's net game is light years ahead of Rafa's, but Rafa is more than decent at net. And who has the best passing shots in the game? Rafa's wide serve, although dented by the lower bounce, is placed well enough for him to set up the point (although he'll have much fewer aces), and get control of the net on his service games. Roger reached the net a lot in the match below, but Tim's lobs are perfectly placed at the back of the court. Well, lobs don't really work against young Rafa. He can chase them down on any surface, and his forehand wins him the point.
ibbi
G.O.A.T.
I don't know, I don't buy it. From 1983 to 2001 you had a 19 year period where 1 baseliner wins Wimbledon, and he barely won it in some all time tennis miracle. Even before that when baseliners like Borg or Connors won it they did it playing way, way more at net than was their nature, and Djokovic's net game remains his weakest quality.
Can Djokovic pull off the Agassi miracle? Maybe, but I think it'd be a longer shot than any of the guys who actually won on that surface (Borg, Laver), or had games more suited to it (Federer).
When it really comes down to it what kind of racquets/strings they play with will make all the difference. If they're playing with the modern stuff then it'll certainly make returning easier, but it'd also make the serves bigger too (evolving racquet tech is what made Wimbledon such a joke in the 90s), and it'll still be skimming through low, and while we talk about the benefit of height today, on return when the ball keeps low it might be a little helpful being a little lower.
Jack the Hack
Hall of Fame
Oh, I'm sure they will. Like Cousin Eddie to the Christmas party.
Short story... Although Novak has never been my favorite player, I respect his game immensely and I've followed his career and watched him play live since he was a teenager. My wife and I had a chance to watch him practice up close at Indian Wells before he was a star (we were sitting on the steps and our feet were on the court), and Novak made some conversation with us and joked around a bit, which was endearing. Anyway, I belong to one of Novak's fan pages on Facebook and made a simple funny comment about his post match celebrations. This was right after his crazy scream fest in an empty stadium after beating Berretini at the French this year:
You would have thought that I made a terrible comment about Novak's kids or something. I literally got death threats... over a joke!
(And when I clicked through to see the people that made the death threats, every single one of them were older Serbian men with big bellies that posted pictures of themselves wearing track suits. Like a casting call for bad Eastern European mobster characters in a B grade action movie. So when I think of the prototypical Djokovic fan now, that's what I envision.)
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
If I was a betting man, my money would be on Borg, Federer, or Djokovic. Likely Borg first.
If Nadal peaks at exactly the right time (when Sampras is a bit below par like 1992 or even 1998), he could do it as well.
If Nadal peaks at exactly the right time (when Sampras is a bit below par like 1992 or even 1998), he could do it as well.
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
Borg is the king of the channel slam but there's no way to tell how his game would adapt to the super fast big serving days of 90s graphite.
It's way easier to send someone back than forwards if we're seriously talking about just dropping someone into a moment in time. All of the Big 3 would have a much better shot at this than Borg, Laver or Lendl.
It's way easier to send someone back than forwards if we're seriously talking about just dropping someone into a moment in time. All of the Big 3 would have a much better shot at this than Borg, Laver or Lendl.
Olli Jokinen
Hall of Fame
Yes, he did well at the FO.
MiamiWeekendWarrior
Hall of Fame
Nadal beat Fed at Wimbledon. No reason he wouldn't also beat Sampras. I voted Nadal because he has actually won FO and W against the best players in the world.
Sampras-Bruguera 1993
Legend
I dont think anyone is going to win a channel slam in the 90s. Clay was too deep of a field and Sampras isn't relinquishing control on grass either. to win both in the same year in the 90s is the equivalent of winning a calendar slam now. You got a slight chance to do it but will fall short most likely
Sampras-Bruguera 1993
Legend
Borg couldn't even handle Mac. He isn't beating Sampras at Wimbledon
MiamiWeekendWarrior
Hall of Fame
Send Pete to do what exactly? The thread is about who would win the FO and W, not who would lose in the 2nd round of the FO.
Kralingen
Talk Tennis Guru
PETE has 1 Rome title.
Federer (who many are picking) has 0.
It is what it is.
Aabye5
G.O.A.T.
Erm, but Federer had to go through the greatest clay courter for most of his career in Rome. Pete did not.
Also, Federer has 1 RG, Pete has 0.
D
Deleted member 780630
Guest
Which specific year in the 90s? If it's any year from '93-'99, they'd have to go through peak/prime Sampras and zoning Krajicek at WB. Federer and maybe Borg are the really the only ones who stand a chance. '90-'92, I'd say Federer and Borg would still be favorites, and maybe Djokovic and Lendl have a shot. Don't know enough about Laver.
Sampras-Bruguera 1993
Legend
I guess someone has a shot at it from 90-92. But definitely not 93-99. The closest player to doing it was Agassi in '99. And we saw how that worked out in the Wimbledon final
daggerman
Hall of Fame
They get 10 cracks at it? Then I'll go Rafa. I'm pretty confident he'd head into at least 8 or 9 Wimbledons with a chance at the double, and I like his chances of winning at least one of those Wimbledons. Realistically, his chances there probably aren't that much lower than Novak's, who would obviously win fewer RGs than Rafa (though probably more than 2). Roger's the best grass courter of the 3, but he'd have his hands full with Pete, too. I'd probably fancy his chances a bit more than Novak, though, since their number of RGs would likely be pretty similar.
FWIW, I think all 3 of them would do it at least once in 10 tries.
FWIW, I think all 3 of them would do it at least once in 10 tries.
MiamiWeekendWarrior
Hall of Fame
I didn't pick Fed either. I picked Nadal. Nadal winning the FO is a given. And since he's beaten a literally peak-of-his-prime Federer at Wimbledon, that's who I picked.
Sampras-Bruguera 1993
Legend
Nadal can't win on fast grass. He can't even win on indoor year end hardcourts. If he can't win a YEC title, he can't win a 90s Wimbledon crown which would be even more of a nightmare for him
MiamiWeekendWarrior
Hall of Fame
There was no one in the 90s who even on fast grass could beat the version of Nadal that beat prime Fed at Wimbledon.
Sampras-Bruguera 1993
Legend
2008 wimbledon was played on much slower grass. Big difference. Wimbledon has been slow since 2002 when they sodded it to the moon
Dedans Penthouse
Legend
It would be my favourite male tennis idol, the one, the only, roger federer
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
Spencer Gore
Legend
Federer couldn't get past the first round on the original, fast Wimbledon grass.
That's in the real world with real results. In your fantasy troll world he wins those tournaments, no doubt.
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes that's a perfectly fair representation of the matter.
Djokovic wouldn't win a single Australia on Rebound Ace either. Real world results don't lie!
Similar threads
- Poll
