Fedalovic Wars

[atttomole]

It helped all the big 3. It made the surfaces less extreme from each other, which obviously made it easier for top players than in the 80’s and 90’s. There were different cultures, completely opposite styles of play, there were players who skipped grass and players players who skipped clay. Now you can stay back and play a similar game on all surfaces, with fewer tweaks..

I understand what you are trying to say. Federer would have played well on clay, as well on grass in the 90’s, I think. He had the game!!

 

[britbox]

You must have missed the 2 US Open matches with Agassi, when Dre could barely walk. As for Rafa at Wimbledon, it was normal and not unexpected that a dominant clay court player fresh off a FO win would struggle at Wimbledon..

Like Borg?

 

[El Dude]

Like Borg?

Not to mention that the Channel Slam in Borg's day was significantly harder than the last couple decades, due to the slowing down of Wimbledon. I'd argue that each of Borg's three Channel Slams are more impressive than Connors three Slams in 1974. Not only were all three played on grass, but the AO for most of 69-82 was basically equivalent to an ATP 500, in terms of depth and difficultly. There were exceptions (like Laver's AO in 1969), but '74 wasn't one of them. Check out Connors' opponents:

Ranks, from high to low: 29, 49, 90, 155, 195, unranked. Here's what their best ranks were: 8, 17, 35, 63, 68, 162. Meaning, Connors only faced one guy who had ever been in the top 10, and a second guy in the top 20. Alexander was a pretty good player and Dent was OK, but none of the other guys were ever even in the top 30.

Alexander's peak Elo of 2159 is comparable, among recent players, to Janko Tipsarevic or Nicolas Almagro. Again, it was a five-set ATP 500. At best it was a very weak Masters equivalent.

Laver's AO was even shorter: just five rounds. But he had to beat four Slam winners: Andres Gimeno, Tony Roche, Fred Stolle, Roy Emerson (and some random guy in the first round). three of them were past their prime but still very close to it. At worst, it was probably like WCT final or Grand Slam Cup.

 

[El Dude]

I understand what you are trying to say. Federer would have played well on clay, as well on grass in the 90’s, I think. He had the game!!

I'm always loathe to say anything that will be perceived here as a Rafa dig, but of the Big Three, I believe that he's benefited the most from the homogeneity of the 2000s. I don't think he would have won Wimbledon in the 90s, and he would have been a pigeon on carpet. Not sure he would have ever lost a clay match, though - with apologies to Courier, Bruguera and Muster, et al.

 

[Kieran]

Like Borg?

Well Bjorn was both the exception that proved the rule, but also he benefited from rising in the gap between great serve-volley eras. His biggest trouble between 1976 and 1980 was Connors, from the baseline. His greatest achievement was delaying McEnroe in 1980. I would say that after this it would have become increasingly difficult for him, especially when Becker and Edberg arrived.

Borg also famously had great early round struggles at Wimbledon: Victor Amaya, Mark Edmondson, Vijay Amritraj all spring to mind. They were matched he did well to escape from.

 

[Kieran]

I'm always loathe to say anything that will be perceived here as a Rafa dig, but of the Big Three, I believe that he's benefited the most from the homogeneity of the 2000s. I don't think he would have won Wimbledon in the 90s, and he would have been a pigeon on carpet. Not sure he would have ever lost a clay match, though - with apologies to Courier, Bruguera and Muster, et al.

I agree with this. I think only Roger of the 3 would be a sure contender every Wimbledon, but the other two would rely on a fair breeze. It wouldn’t be impossible, but it would be unlikely. Likewise, Roger would struggle the most in Paris. It’s very unlikely he’d get through all those great dirtballers you mentioned..

 

[atttomole]

I agree with this. I think only Roger of the 3 would be a sure contender every Wimbledon, but the other two would rely on a fair breeze. It wouldn’t be impossible, but it would be unlikely. Likewise, Roger would struggle the most in Paris. It’s very unlikely he’d get through all those great dirtballers you mentioned..

I wouldn’t say likewise. Those three mentioned were great clay courters. However, I don’t see how Federer would not have been able to win 1 or 2 RG against those three. Nadal presented a whole different set of challenges for Federer that Buruguera, Muster or Courier wouldn’t present. The other one would be Bourg.

 

[Kieran]

I wouldn’t say likewise. Those three mentioned were great clay courters. However, I don’t see how Federer would not have been able to win 1 or 2 RG against those three. Nadal presented a whole different set of challenges for Federer that Buruguera, Muster or Courier wouldn’t present. The other one would be Bourg.

Federer was hammered in 2004 by Kuerten, a classic clay courter, who at that stage was in decline. It’s not a given that he’d beat those players, given that he’d have grown up in the split culture where players specialised more on preferred surfaces…

 

[mrzz]

Federer was hammered in 2004 by Kuerten, a classic clay courter, who at that stage was in decline. It’s not a given that he’d beat those players, given that he’d have grown up in the split culture where players specialised more on preferred surfaces…

True, but Federer got way better on clay after that match. He quotes that match occasionally, in fact. In the long term at least he would have found a way.

 

[atttomole]

Federer was hammered in 2004 by Kuerten, a classic clay courter, who at that stage was in decline. It’s not a given that he’d beat those players, given that he’d have grown up in the split culture where players specialised more on preferred surfaces…

If Borg won the channel slam, why wouldn’t Federer win it in the 90’s? True, there were specialists, but if one had the game to play on all surfaces, the channel was winnable in the 90’s too.

 

[El Dude]

I agree with this. I think only Roger of the 3 would be a sure contender every Wimbledon, but the other two would rely on a fair breeze. It wouldn’t be impossible, but it would be unlikely. Likewise, Roger would struggle the most in Paris. It’s very unlikely he’d get through all those great dirtballers you mentioned..

I was fiddling about with this or that study, and found that the most similar play to Roger on clay was Thomas Muster. Compare:

Muster: 2458 peak clay elo (7th all-time); 1 RG win, 0 finals; 6 Masters; 33 minor titles
Federer: 2453 peak clay elo (8th all-time); 1 RG win, 4 finals; 6 Masters, 4 minor titles

Almost exact same Elo (6 points is a neglible difference), exact same number of RG wins and Masters titles. The big difference is that Muster won a TON of lesser titles - but he also played a lot more. He won 33 of 122 minor clay events played, while Roger won 4 of 16 played...so even the rate is almost exactly the same.

In other words, Roger on clay = Thomas Muster on clay.

Anyhow, I think Roger would have been fine and, like attamole said, probably won even more French Opens.

 

[Kieran]

I know that it’s natural that Federer fans are going to support the idea that he would be able to be the same in the nineties as he was in the new millennium. Hell, we Rafa fans can also argue that with his 2010 and 2013 serve he’d have chances to win Wimbledon in the nineties, given how great his volleys and smash are. He’d only need the stars to align, which they may have.

Roger got the stars to align in 2009. But it isn’t really possible to say what might have happened if players grew up in a totally different culture to the one we’re used to seeing them in. Opportunity presented itself in 2009, and if Roger found a way it was only because of that. He beat no great clay court players. If he grew up in the split culture of the eighties and nineties, it’s not necessarily guaranteed that he’d be the same player he was when the very sport itself was changed to gift more opportunity to top players in the new millennium.

Borg got the opportunity to play on grass from the back against baseliners and lesser players until McEnroe came along with a traditional and exceptional grass court game. Bjorn was great and his achievements are deservedly legendary. He was my idol, he still is. But I firmly believe he was a man of his time but he would be unlikely to have won Wimbledon if he peaked in the 80’s or 90’s.

The thing is, we can’t tell, but the mix of extreme power and expert net rushers taking his time away, would make it much more difficult. That’s as far as we can know..

 

[britbox]

Well Bjorn was both the exception that proved the rule, but also he benefited from rising in the gap between great serve-volley eras. His biggest trouble between 1976 and 1980 was Connors, from the baseline. His greatest achievement was delaying McEnroe in 1980. I would say that after this it would have become increasingly difficult for him, especially when Becker and Edberg arrived.

Borg also famously had great early round struggles at Wimbledon: Victor Amaya, Mark Edmondson, Vijay Amritraj all spring to mind. They were matched he did well to escape from.

You seem to forget that for several of those years, Federer played the same number of rounds on clay at Roland Garros as Nadal... as the losing finalist and the one win. By all means, sneer at some of Federer's wins... but the fact remains Nadal wasn't in those finals because he lost - and generally not to marquee names.

 

[El Dude]

I know that it’s natural that Federer fans are going to support the idea that he would be able to be the same in the nineties as he was in the new millennium. Hell, we Rafa fans can also argue that with his 2010 and 2013 serve he’d have chances to win Wimbledon in the nineties, given how great his volleys and smash are. He’d only need the stars to align, which they may have.

Roger got the stars to align in 2009. But it isn’t really possible to say what might have happened if players grew up in a totally different culture to the one we’re used to seeing them in. Opportunity presented itself in 2009, and if Roger found a way it was only because of that. He beat no great clay court players. If he grew up in the split culture of the eighties and nineties, it’s not necessarily guaranteed that he’d be the same player he was when the very sport itself was changed to gift more opportunity to top players in the new millennium.

Borg got the opportunity to play on grass from the back against baseliners and lesser players until McEnroe came along with a traditional and exceptional grass court game. Bjorn was great and his achievements are deservedly legendary. He was my idol, he still is. But I firmly believe he was a man of his time but he would be unlikely to have won Wimbledon if he peaked in the 80’s or 90’s.

The thing is, we can’t tell, but the mix of extreme power and expert net rushers taking his time away, would make it much more difficult. That’s as far as we can know..

Roger beat everyone he faced except Nadal in FIVE years at Roland Garros and won six clay Masters. Again, same big title record on clay as Thomas Muster, but with 4 finals - and Muster was one of the best clay courters of the 90s.

Now we could argue that Rafa was similar on grass: same number of grass Slam finals, but two wins.

The difference, though, is that clay in 2006-11 (Roger's RG final span) was a lot closer to clay in the 90s than Wimbledon grass in 2006-11 (interestingly enough, Rafa's Wim final span - the same as Roger's clay span) was to Wimbledon grass of the 90s.

The ATP deliberately slowed down Wimbledon in 2002. I don't believe they changed clay in any significant way, or at least to a significant degree. Ergo, Roger's clay results are a lot more transferrable to the 90s than Rafa's grass results.

This isn't bias. It is simple logic.

Now there could be factors I don't comprehend, but given the available info, I don't see how my reasoning isn't sound.

That said, I think Rafa would have been competitive at Wimbledon in the 90s, going deep and even making a finals or two. But he wouldn't have been Pete on grass, or at least at Wimbledon. But I don't think he could have beaten Sampras on grass, except maybe the decrepit later version and only his very best form (meaning, 2010 Rafa vs. 2001-02 Pete). Nor do I think he could have beaten Roger on grass if you place all their Wimbledon matches before 2002. Roger would have owned him like he did at the Tour Finals where he was 4-1, the only loss coming in his off year in 2013. Meaning, he would have needed an off version of Roger to beat him on the grass of the 90s.

 

[Kieran]

You seem to forget that for several of those years, Federer played the same number of rounds on clay at Roland Garros as Nadal... as the losing finalist and the one win. By all means, sneer at some of Federer's wins... but the fact remains Nadal wasn't in those finals because he lost - and generally not to marquee names.

Roger was in five FO finals and Rafa was in five Wimbledon finals. And though Rafa did lose to underdogs in early rounds, he also beat Roger at Wimbledon and took him to five in 2007. I’m not sneering at Roger, that tends to come from blow in Djokolytes. Rafa and Roger had the most intense rivalry in tennis history, and Djoker came after that when they’d passed their best. But Roger still was game enough in 2019 to hold championship points against a man six years younger than him. Somehow that became a meme instead of a thing worthy of praise…

 

[mrzz]

Great point, @Kieran about Nadal's volleys and smash. Nadal's volleys are actually great, but they are even greater on clay (his natural volley is a firm cross court or a deep shot, he does not go that much for the touch volley). But, still, a great volleyer.

But there is the racquet part. Federer grew up with a smaller frame. He would have adapted easier to the older gear. On the other hand, he is waaaay more stubborn....

On the one hand, I do think gear and environment would favor more Federer than Nadal in the 80's and 90's. The wild card here is Nadal's great strategical mind. He would find a way to adapt, and adapt well. (I mean adapt his skills to the context he would grow up to in that context).

 

[Kieran]

Great point, @Kieran about Nadal's volleys and smash. Nadal's volleys are actually great, but they are even greater on clay (his natural volley is a firm cross court or a deep shot, he does not go that much for the touch volley). But, still, a great volleyer.

But there is the racquet part. Federer grew up with a smaller frame. He would have adapted easier to the older gear. On the other hand, he is waaaay more stubborn....

On the one hand, I do think gear and environment would favor more Federer than Nadal in the 80's and 90's. The wild card here is Nadal's great strategical mind. He would find a way to adapt, and adapt well. (I mean adapt his skills to the context he would grow up to in that context).

Great post, and that’s the thing: context. Rafa couldn’t get that high parabola spin on old grass. The ball didn’t dig in so favourably. But it’s great to wonder how old greats would fare in another era. My favourite scenario is to figure out how they’d manage in the fifties when they’d have to travel by steamboat across the great oceans to play in slams, tournaments where they’d have a smoke at the changes of ends and nibble a naggin of whiskey…