These are the four players who would dominate in any era. Note, this is not a tier 1 or GOAT discussion. It's as the title of this thread says, the players who would transcend any era. The following list is in alphabetical era.
Borg
To win the channel slam on several occasions, 3 times I believe, when the courts at W and the FO played as differently as they could get, says it all really. A phenomenal achievement. This player would play from the back to win the FO and then 4 weeks later serve and volley his way to the W trophy. That is just amazing if you think about it. Number 1 in the world, 11 slams by the time he was 26. This player would dominate in any era.
Federer
300 plus weeks at number 1, 5 times year ending number 1, a beast on fast courts, extremely very handy on slow courts, monster forehand, equal record holder at two slams, 18 slams to his name all up. This player would dominate in any era.
Laver
Admittedly I never saw him play when he played, but when you have an event named after you, the venue of a slam named after you and probably a whole heap of other things named after you, have won the grand slam twice, as an amateur and as a pro, was denied 6 or 7 years worth of slams, you'd have to say this player would dominate in any era.
Sampras
200 plus weeks at number 1, 6 year ending number 1s, equal record holder at two slams, 14 slams to his name all up, a monster forehand, the GOAT overhead smash, the GOAT service package, and could mix it from the back of the court as well (at least against Agassi). Grew up with a double handed back hand before switching to the single hander so he could dominate Wimbledon, demonstrates he would adjust to dominate this era too, probably a couple less Wimbledons with Fed around (they would steal Ws from each other) but more of the other slams, Including the FO (think to yourself a double back hander Sampras). This player would dominate in any era.
The notable omissions.
Nadal.
Nadal's record at the FO makes his accomplishments look better than they really are. Take away the FO and he has a mere 5 slams to his name. He has barely done alright at 2 slams and under achieved at one other. And don't get me started on the WTF. His game on fast indoor is for the dogs. Probably the biggest benefactor of the slowing down of the courts and the poly strings too. The extra grip these strings gives and the bigger sweet spot has helped his spin immensely. Put a wooden racquet in his hand against Borg and Borg would do a job on him. His extra fitness and stamina is a plus, but that's not gonna help him much when he's trying to retrieve bullet first and second serves from Sampras on fast indoor and fast grass and chasing volleys from Sampras' racquet from 5 feet behind the baseline. He would still dominate the FO in say the 90s but not as much as he has in his era because playing guys like Brug, Courier, Muster, Kafelnikov and so on and so on, one round after the other, would take its toll on him. This player ain't dominating in any era other than his own.
Djokovic
He once said his dream as a kid was to win Wimbledon. Well he ain't fulfilling his dream in any preceding era. Federer and Sampras would make mince meat out of him at the world's most prestigious event in 90s conditions. Nor would he against peak Borg, Sampras and Federer in today's conditions. And to be quite frank, he's a bit of a choker. He too is a benefactor of the slowing of the courts. And when his game is off, boy is it off. As Sampras once said, when Nadal plays badly, he's got nothing but when Sampras plays badly, he still has his serve to fall back on. The same applies to Djokovic. This player ain't dominating in any era other than his own.
There's pretty much no argument in this thread. It's objective, unbiased and methodical. No fanboyism here.
Have a nice day. Thank you. That is all.
Borg
To win the channel slam on several occasions, 3 times I believe, when the courts at W and the FO played as differently as they could get, says it all really. A phenomenal achievement. This player would play from the back to win the FO and then 4 weeks later serve and volley his way to the W trophy. That is just amazing if you think about it. Number 1 in the world, 11 slams by the time he was 26. This player would dominate in any era.
Federer
300 plus weeks at number 1, 5 times year ending number 1, a beast on fast courts, extremely very handy on slow courts, monster forehand, equal record holder at two slams, 18 slams to his name all up. This player would dominate in any era.
Laver
Admittedly I never saw him play when he played, but when you have an event named after you, the venue of a slam named after you and probably a whole heap of other things named after you, have won the grand slam twice, as an amateur and as a pro, was denied 6 or 7 years worth of slams, you'd have to say this player would dominate in any era.
Sampras
200 plus weeks at number 1, 6 year ending number 1s, equal record holder at two slams, 14 slams to his name all up, a monster forehand, the GOAT overhead smash, the GOAT service package, and could mix it from the back of the court as well (at least against Agassi). Grew up with a double handed back hand before switching to the single hander so he could dominate Wimbledon, demonstrates he would adjust to dominate this era too, probably a couple less Wimbledons with Fed around (they would steal Ws from each other) but more of the other slams, Including the FO (think to yourself a double back hander Sampras). This player would dominate in any era.
The notable omissions.
Nadal.
Nadal's record at the FO makes his accomplishments look better than they really are. Take away the FO and he has a mere 5 slams to his name. He has barely done alright at 2 slams and under achieved at one other. And don't get me started on the WTF. His game on fast indoor is for the dogs. Probably the biggest benefactor of the slowing down of the courts and the poly strings too. The extra grip these strings gives and the bigger sweet spot has helped his spin immensely. Put a wooden racquet in his hand against Borg and Borg would do a job on him. His extra fitness and stamina is a plus, but that's not gonna help him much when he's trying to retrieve bullet first and second serves from Sampras on fast indoor and fast grass and chasing volleys from Sampras' racquet from 5 feet behind the baseline. He would still dominate the FO in say the 90s but not as much as he has in his era because playing guys like Brug, Courier, Muster, Kafelnikov and so on and so on, one round after the other, would take its toll on him. This player ain't dominating in any era other than his own.
Djokovic
He once said his dream as a kid was to win Wimbledon. Well he ain't fulfilling his dream in any preceding era. Federer and Sampras would make mince meat out of him at the world's most prestigious event in 90s conditions. Nor would he against peak Borg, Sampras and Federer in today's conditions. And to be quite frank, he's a bit of a choker. He too is a benefactor of the slowing of the courts. And when his game is off, boy is it off. As Sampras once said, when Nadal plays badly, he's got nothing but when Sampras plays badly, he still has his serve to fall back on. The same applies to Djokovic. This player ain't dominating in any era other than his own.
There's pretty much no argument in this thread. It's objective, unbiased and methodical. No fanboyism here.
Have a nice day. Thank you. That is all.
