If Nole Matches, or even Surpasses Rog, but does not win the French...

[Kieran]

The career slam was so much more difficult in Pete's day. If two or three players were able to do it, Pete would have done it. The game changed, and it's more accessible now, unrecognisably so...

 

[Luxilon Borg]

The career slam was so much more difficult in Pete's day. If two or three players were able to do it, Pete would have done it. The game changed, and it's more accessible now, unrecognisably so...

Wow. I could not disagree more. uzzled

It if far, far more difficult now. The physicality of winning 28 3 out of 5 matches on four different surfaces
is insane, and that is with the non stop Masters and Davis Cup schedules.

Pete ran out of gas by the Qtr finals of the French.

And Agassi did it, and managed to play 7 more full seasons.

The ONLY thing I can think of that could back your notion is that there were more surface specialists at that time. But today the draws are so much deeper it is absurd.

Let us also look at the fact that Courier got to the finals of all four.

But Pete never made a serious go at the French. He showed up a week ahead, snubbing the European clay season for most of his career. He won 3 clay titles, as many as Roger has won in some seasons.

 

[Kieran]

The career slam was so much more difficult in Pete's day. If two or three players were able to do it, Pete would have done it. The game changed, and it's more accessible now, unrecognisably so...

Wow. I could not disagree more. uzzled

It if far, far more difficult now. The physicality of winning 28 3 out of 5 matches on four different surfaces
is insane, and that is with the non stop Masters and Davis Cup schedules.

Pete ran out of gas by the Qtr finals of the French.

And Agassi did it, and managed to play 7 more full seasons.

The ONLY thing I can think of that could back your notion is that there were more surface specialists at that time. But today the draws are so much deeper it is absurd.

Let us also look at the fact that Courier got to the finals of all four.

But Pete never made a serious go at the French. He showed up a week ahead, snubbing the European clay season for most of his career. He won 3 clay titles, as many as Roger has won in some seasons.

Before they homogenised everything, it was much tougher. You had a swarm of claycourters who dominated that slow-mo part of the year, then things sped up like Charlie Chaplin and it was zing, swoosh, bosh on grass, fellers with huge serves and rallies that lasted no longer than the blink of an eye. When Pete was young, he had to choose, and he choose to ditch his two-hander, since it would be an impediment to winning Wimbledon. No such choice afflicts players now. If anything, they'd almost choose to ditch the single handed backhand and grab a two-hander, because the game is played differently.

I don't think today's draws at tougher at all. I know you said "deeper", but the implication is that they're tougher. They're far from it. I remember even sh1theels like rusedksi turning up at Wimbledon with all guns blazing, gunning for the champ. Fellas fought to the death. Nowadays they seem to have accepted their lot as super-rich losers in a merry gentleman sport. It's far easier now for the top dog to roll the field than ever, and that's been the case since homogenisation. In fact, it's most likely a consequence of it...

 

[Luxilon Borg]

The career slam was so much more difficult in Pete's day. If two or three players were able to do it, Pete would have done it. The game changed, and it's more accessible now, unrecognisably so...

Wow. I could not disagree more. uzzled

It if far, far more difficult now. The physicality of winning 28 3 out of 5 matches on four different surfaces
is insane, and that is with the non stop Masters and Davis Cup schedules.

Pete ran out of gas by the Qtr finals of the French.

And Agassi did it, and managed to play 7 more full seasons.

The ONLY thing I can think of that could back your notion is that there were more surface specialists at that time. But today the draws are so much deeper it is absurd.

Let us also look at the fact that Courier got to the finals of all four.

But Pete never made a serious go at the French. He showed up a week ahead, snubbing the European clay season for most of his career. He won 3 clay titles, as many as Roger has won in some seasons.

Before they homogenised everything, it was much tougher. You had a swarm of claycourters who dominated that slow-mo part of the year, then things sped up like Charlie Chaplin and it was zing, swoosh, bosh on grass, fellers with huge serves and rallies that lasted no longer than the blink of an eye. When Pete was young, he had to choose, and he choose to ditch his two-hander, since it would be an impediment to winning Wimbledon. No such choice afflicts players now. If anything, they'd almost choose to ditch the single handed backhand and grab a two-hander, because the game is played differently.

I don't think today's draws at tougher at all. I know you said "deeper", but the implication is that they're tougher. They're far from it. I remember even sh1theels like rusedksi turning up at Wimbledon with all guns blazing, gunning for the champ. Fellas fought to the death. Nowadays they seem to have accepted their lot as super-rich losers in a merry gentleman sport. It's far easier now for the top dog to roll the field than ever, and that's been the case since homogenisation. In fact, it's most likely a consequence of it...

I think you are re-writing history here. I think you have told your self a good story..and it is an interesting one...

but, let's look at the French and Wimby draws from two of Pete's best years, 1994 and 1996

1994 French Open:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_French_Open_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_Singles

Note, Pat Rafter gets to the 4th round, Goran gets to the Qtrs, as does Pete.

1994 Wimbledon:

Even more interesting, Goran goes deep, to the final. As does Medvedev, who went deep at the French, and Bruguera gets to the 4th round!

1996 French Open:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_French_Open_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_Singles

Well, well, Pete gets to the semis, along with Richie K getting to the Qtrs, who goes on to win Wimbledon that year...!!!...and Cedric Pioline qtrs, and he is a USO and Wimby finalist. Michael Stich, in the final..also goes on to win Wimbledon...he gets to the 4th Rd.

1996 Wimbledon:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Wimbledon_Championships_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_Singles

Pioline, gets to the 4th Rd! As does Stich, the French finalist. Rafter gets to the 4th round, and he also makes a French semi a year later.

So I don't think the facts jive with your view..and this is just a two year sample. In 97, a one hander wins the French, his first of 3..and also Qtrs at Wimbledon, and the USO, and goes on to win the WTF on fast indoor courts.

 

[Kieran]

Actually, you're making my point for me. Who won the FO's during these years? Who won the Wimbos? It was a case of never the twain, until Agassi won the FO in 1999. But otherwise, outside of Dre, I think only Courier managed to make the finals of both during the 90's. Maybe Stich. otherwise, the tour was polarised to the extent that it was almost two different tours. How many clay-court players repeated Lendl's old adage about grass being for cows?

How many players say that now?

it's not such an unusual stylistic shift to head from Paris to Wimbledon, anymore. But in the 90's, although players like Pete had medium success on clay, and most claycourters had zero success on grass, it was because the surfaces played so differently, the balls too, and the culture was tailored to meet the demand. Hence, Pete dropped the two-hander. The world of tennis was so different then that a player couldn't succeed regularly at the highest levels on both surfaces without hugely reconstructing his game in the gap between them. That just isn't the case today...

 

[El Dude]

Funny coming from Lendl, who never could win Wimbledon.

I would actually split the difference between the two of you as I think you're both right, but maybe both a bit extreme, perhaps in relation to each other. I also wonder to what degree the homogenization is over-amplified due to a narrower style of play today.

The bottom line, though, is that winning the Career Slam in ANY era is an incredible feat. It means a player is able to adjust and adapt to all surfaces, to bring his best game anywhere. On the other hand, it is just another factor in assessing overall greatness and shouldn't be magnified to be greater than it is. Agassi did it, but wasn't as great a player as Sampras, Lendl, McEnroe, and Borg.

 

[Kieran]

The point of homogenisation is that the adjustments are easier to make nowadays. In fact, they're minimal, but the benefit is that we get great rivalries across the board. We know the game has changed when the world's best claycourt player finds indoor courts to be too slow , as oppose to being too lightning fast.

But nowadays we get more great matches across all the surfaces by the top players. The rivalries are immeasurably greater now, because the top players can compete across all the majors. Novak and Roger have played great matches at the FO, Wimbo, the USO. The only place they haven't is at Oz, but there they have 10 titles between them. Rafa has probably played in the greatest matches of all time at Wimbo (2008), Paris (2013) and Oz (2012), and he's still won the USO twice. So for those of us who love rivalries, there's a great upside to it...

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Actually, you're making my point for me. Who won the FO's during these years? Who won the Wimbos? It was a case of never the twain, until Agassi won the FO in 1999. But otherwise, outside of Dre, I think only Courier managed to make the finals of both during the 90's. Maybe Stich. otherwise, the tour was polarised to the extent that it was almost two different tours. How many clay-court players repeated Lendl's old adage about grass being for cows?

How many players say that now?

it's not such an unusual stylistic shift to head from Paris to Wimbledon, anymore. But in the 90's, although players like Pete had medium success on clay, and most claycourters had zero success on grass, it was because the surfaces played so differently, the balls too, and the culture was tailored to meet the demand. Hence, Pete dropped the two-hander. The world of tennis was so different then that a player couldn't succeed regularly at the highest levels on both surfaces without hugely reconstructing his game in the gap between them. That just isn't the case today...

I still respectfully disagree. There were just too many players going deep into the draw of the French, Wimbledon, and USO..and players who got to the finals (and semi finals) of at least three of them.like Stich, Courier, Agassi, Goran, Pioline, etc.

The BIGGEST difference, that I see..is that could go from one slam to another and meet players who had GLARING weaknesses on a regular basis..what seems like ultra homogenized play today is really to me a big block of players with no major weaknesses.

But I will say I do see your side of the argument...but I would MUCH rather be going for the career slam in the 90s than today.

 

[Kieran]

Actually, you're making my point for me. Who won the FO's during these years? Who won the Wimbos? It was a case of never the twain, until Agassi won the FO in 1999. But otherwise, outside of Dre, I think only Courier managed to make the finals of both during the 90's. Maybe Stich. otherwise, the tour was polarised to the extent that it was almost two different tours. How many clay-court players repeated Lendl's old adage about grass being for cows?

How many players say that now?

it's not such an unusual stylistic shift to head from Paris to Wimbledon, anymore. But in the 90's, although players like Pete had medium success on clay, and most claycourters had zero success on grass, it was because the surfaces played so differently, the balls too, and the culture was tailored to meet the demand. Hence, Pete dropped the two-hander. The world of tennis was so different then that a player couldn't succeed regularly at the highest levels on both surfaces without hugely reconstructing his game in the gap between them. That just isn't the case today...

I still respectfully disagree. There were just too many players going deep into the draw of the French, Wimbledon, and USO..and players who got to the finals (and semi finals) of at least three of them.like Stich, Courier, Agassi, Goran, Pioline, etc.

The BIGGEST difference, that I see..is that could go from one slam to another and meet players who had GLARING weaknesses on a regular basis..what seems like ultra homogenized play today is really to me a big block of players with no major weaknesses.

But I will say I do see your side of the argument...but I would MUCH rather be going for the career slam in the 90s than today.

Why? If you were a great player today, it would be almost commonplace.

Since 2005, every season except 2012 and 2013 has seen at least one player reach the finals of FO and Wimbo. Sometimes two players did. The Channel Slam which hadn't been done since Borg has been achieved 3 times, and is constantly under threat. Players reaching the QF and semis in the 90's isn't a sign that the surfaces and technology were exactly as they are now (because we know they're not), or that it was a similar thing to doing that today. Do you agree with me that a player can succeed at both the FO and Wimbledon today, while making far fewer adjustments than they used to?

EDIT: by the way, I also see your point when you say that "what seems like ultra homogenized play today is really to me a big block of players with no major weaknesses." It's like what El Dude said, about a "narrower style of play" which is actually a consequence of homogenisation. They began to slow Wimbo down after the 1994 final. But looked at from the perspective of you phrase, "players with no major weaknesses", this actually applied to how serve-volleyers played on grass. The perfect style, tailored for the occasion.

Unfortunately, when the occasion was slow drudge-like clay, that style was a weakness, and other players whose game suited that surface prevailed...

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Actually, you're making my point for me. Who won the FO's during these years? Who won the Wimbos? It was a case of never the twain, until Agassi won the FO in 1999. But otherwise, outside of Dre, I think only Courier managed to make the finals of both during the 90's. Maybe Stich. otherwise, the tour was polarised to the extent that it was almost two different tours. How many clay-court players repeated Lendl's old adage about grass being for cows?

How many players say that now?

it's not such an unusual stylistic shift to head from Paris to Wimbledon, anymore. But in the 90's, although players like Pete had medium success on clay, and most claycourters had zero success on grass, it was because the surfaces played so differently, the balls too, and the culture was tailored to meet the demand. Hence, Pete dropped the two-hander. The world of tennis was so different then that a player couldn't succeed regularly at the highest levels on both surfaces without hugely reconstructing his game in the gap between them. That just isn't the case today...

I still respectfully disagree. There were just too many players going deep into the draw of the French, Wimbledon, and USO..and players who got to the finals (and semi finals) of at least three of them.like Stich, Courier, Agassi, Goran, Pioline, etc.

The BIGGEST difference, that I see..is that could go from one slam to another and meet players who had GLARING weaknesses on a regular basis..what seems like ultra homogenized play today is really to me a big block of players with no major weaknesses.

But I will say I do see your side of the argument...but I would MUCH rather be going for the career slam in the 90s than today.

Why? If you were a great player today, it would be almost commonplace.

Since 2005, every season except 2012 and 2013 has seen at least one player reach the finals of FO and Wimbo. Sometimes two players did. The Channel Slam which hadn't been done since Borg has been achieved 3 times, and is constantly under threat. Players reaching the QF and semis in the 90's isn't a sign that the surfaces and technology were exactly as they are now (because we know they're not), or that it was a similar thing to doing that today. Do you agree with me that a player can succeed at both the FO and Wimbledon today, while making far fewer adjustments than they used to?

One of the things I think you may be over looking is the fact that the players are SO, SO much fitter today that going deep into Wimby after the French is just as much about fitness as it is about making adjustments. As I noted, Sampras would skip the ENTIRE clay court season and show up fresh at Wimbledon, then have several months to recover for the US Open.

Becker would SKIP the French on numerous occasions to focus on the Big W..Lendl did it once and got to the final. This would be UNHEARD of today.

And you conveniently left out that Rafa after winning the Channel Slam, also has crashed out on 3 occasions before the third round.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Actually, you're making my point for me. Who won the FO's during these years? Who won the Wimbos? It was a case of never the twain, until Agassi won the FO in 1999. But otherwise, outside of Dre, I think only Courier managed to make the finals of both during the 90's. Maybe Stich. otherwise, the tour was polarised to the extent that it was almost two different tours. How many clay-court players repeated Lendl's old adage about grass being for cows?

How many players say that now?

it's not such an unusual stylistic shift to head from Paris to Wimbledon, anymore. But in the 90's, although players like Pete had medium success on clay, and most claycourters had zero success on grass, it was because the surfaces played so differently, the balls too, and the culture was tailored to meet the demand. Hence, Pete dropped the two-hander. The world of tennis was so different then that a player couldn't succeed regularly at the highest levels on both surfaces without hugely reconstructing his game in the gap between them. That just isn't the case today...

I still respectfully disagree. There were just too many players going deep into the draw of the French, Wimbledon, and USO..and players who got to the finals (and semi finals) of at least three of them.like Stich, Courier, Agassi, Goran, Pioline, etc.

The BIGGEST difference, that I see..is that could go from one slam to another and meet players who had GLARING weaknesses on a regular basis..what seems like ultra homogenized play today is really to me a big block of players with no major weaknesses.

But I will say I do see your side of the argument...but I would MUCH rather be going for the career slam in the 90s than today.

Why? If you were a great player today, it would be almost commonplace.

Since 2005, every season except 2012 and 2013 has seen at least one player reach the finals of FO and Wimbo. Sometimes two players did. The Channel Slam which hadn't been done since Borg has been achieved 3 times, and is constantly under threat. Players reaching the QF and semis in the 90's isn't a sign that the surfaces and technology were exactly as they are now (because we know they're not), or that it was a similar thing to doing that today. Do you agree with me that a player can succeed at both the FO and Wimbledon today, while making far fewer adjustments than they used to?

EDIT: by the way, I also see your point when you say that "what seems like ultra homogenized play today is really to me a big block of players with no major weaknesses." It's like what El Dude said, about a "narrower style of play" which is actually a consequence of homogenisation. They began to slow Wimbo down after the 1994 final. But looked at from the perspective of you phrase, "players with no major weaknesses", this actually applied to how serve-volleyers played on grass. The perfect style, tailored for the occasion.

Unfortunately, when the occasion was slow drudge-like clay, that style was a weakness, and other players whose game suited that surface prevailed...

I see many of your points as well..

But I also see too many players that remind of me of the Rusedski's, the Wayne Arthur's, and the Goran's...we have Milos, Lopez, Kevin Anderson etc....

Perhaps El Dude is right and the reality of it is somewhere in between both our viewpoints.

 

[Kieran]

One of the things I think you may be over looking is the fact that the players are SO, SO much fitter today that going deep into Wimby after the French is just as much about fitness as it is about making adjustments. As I noted, Sampras would skip the ENTIRE clay court season and show up fresh at Wimbledon, then have several months to recover for the US Open.

Becker would SKIP the French on numerous occasions to focus on the Big W..Lendl did it once and got to the final. This would be UNHEARD of today.

And you conveniently left out that Rafa after winning the Channel Slam, also has crashed out on 3 occasions before the third round.

Well, Rafa reached the 4th round of Wimbo in 2014, so according to your list of players above, that's a sign of him doing well there! :snicker :hug

As I often say, a long rally to Pete Sampras was that he'd have to hit a second serve. Fitness wasn't his issue. His issue was that he chose a style that was suited to the rat-a-tat game of grasscourt tennis, so he could win Wimbledon. That was how the game was then. You couldn't be sure of winning Wimbo if you stayed at the baseline. And you certainly couldn't win the FO playing the same way you did at Wimbledon. The adjustments were too great.

And players didn't skip the FO or clay season because they weren't fit. They were still the fittest players on tour. They skipped it for the reason I've been saying: clay was just too different to grass, and these men wanted to prepare for Wimbledon.

I see many of your points as well..

But I also see too many players that remind of me of the Rusedski's, the Wayne Arthur's, and the Goran's...we have Milos, Lopez, Kevin Anderson etc....

Perhaps El Dude is right and the reality of it is somewhere in between both our viewpoints.

Wherever the truth is, it's always nice to chat with you, my friend...

 

[El Dude]

The point of homogenisation is that the adjustments are easier to make nowadays. In fact, they're minimal, but the benefit is that we get great rivalries across the board. We know the game has changed when the world's best claycourt player finds indoor courts to be too slow , as oppose to being too lightning fast.

But nowadays we get more great matches across all the surfaces by the top players. The rivalries are immeasurably greater now, because the top players can compete across all the majors. Novak and Roger have played great matches at the FO, Wimbo, the USO. The only place they haven't is at Oz, but there they have 10 titles between them. Rafa has probably played in the greatest matches of all time at Wimbo (2008), Paris (2013) and Oz (2012), and he's still won the USO twice. So for those of us who love rivalries, there's a great upside to it...

Yes, well said. Look at how consistent a player like Andy Murray is - if he played in the 90s, he would have more first-week upsets scattered throughout his record.

To be honest, I kind of wish that there were more fast courts, and more grass in general. I think a more diverse tour is more interesting than the homogenization we have.

That said, while I agree with you that the courts are more homogenized, which on one hand makes the career Slam easier because there's less difference between the French Open and Wimbledon now than there was 25 years ago, I also wonder if this is offset by the fact that because they are more homogenized, it also means that the great players can play anywhere. From 2008-13, you couldn't "hide from" Rafa off-clay, and in Roger's prime you couldn't hide from him on slower courts - they are great everywhere, or at least were at their very best.

Consider that the best player of the 90s was never a serious factor at the French Open. Or consider the simple fact that from 2003 to the present, a player almost certainly has to defeat one of Roger, Rafa, or Novak in a Slam to win it - at ANY Slam. Facing Pete Sampras at the French Open in the 90s was about as fearsome as facing Rafa has been at Wimbledon since 2012: the name is scary, the player is dangerous, but they were beatable.

So I think the two off-set each other. Meaning, the homogenization of today's courts means that it is both easier to adapt your game to every court than it was 20 years ago, but also that you're more likely to have to face a great player on any surface than you were in the 90s and before.

 

[Kieran]

That was the reason why they changed the game: more rivalries at the top, and a better quality to them. They've succeeded in that aim. The sport is never perfect, except for us fans, in any era...

 

[El Dude]

Its hard not to be either too tight or too loose. Maybe they went too far to the extreme of homogenization and need to "loosen up" a bit, although without going back 30 years.

Another negative element of the homogenization is that we see fewer one-Slam wonders, or specialists that go deep in Slams, no real surprises. 25 years ago a "hot" clay courter like Pablo Cuevas might actually have a chance going into Roland Garros. I think at best he could upset someone like Tomas Berdych--or even Roger--but no chance of actually winning it.

 

[Kieran]

Its hard not to be either too tight or too loose. Maybe they went too far to the extreme of homogenization and need to "loosen up" a bit, although without going back 30 years.

Another negative element of the homogenization is that we see fewer one-Slam wonders, or specialists that go deep in Slams, no real surprises. 25 years ago a "hot" clay courter like Pablo Cuevas might actually have a chance going into Roland Garros. I think at best he could upset someone like Tomas Berdych--or even Roger--but no chance of actually winning it.

That's it. And as you said above, a faster court would help. Somewhere in the world , a faster court. Make indoors play like indoors, at least. Let's have the old whizz-bang back, the macho seat of the pants stuff. I think that when players had less time to tee up the shot, it made for more ingenious and entertaining tennis...

 

[Great Hands]

Or consider the simple fact that from 2003 to the present, a player almost certainly has to defeat one of Roger, Rafa, or Novak in a Slam to win it - at ANY Slam.

Yes, from WD04 every single slam has been won either by Fedalovic or a player who beat at least one of Fedalovic. So for 47 slams and counting you've had to be them or beat them to win a slam. Quite a stat in and of itself.

 

[Great Hands]

Its hard not to be either too tight or too loose. Maybe they went too far to the extreme of homogenization and need to "loosen up" a bit, although without going back 30 years.

Another negative element of the homogenization is that we see fewer one-Slam wonders, or specialists that go deep in Slams, no real surprises. 25 years ago a "hot" clay courter like Pablo Cuevas might actually have a chance going into Roland Garros. I think at best he could upset someone like Tomas Berdych--or even Roger--but no chance of actually winning it.

#

The thing is, i like the fact that it's so hard for anyone other than the top guys to win slams, and that there are less one slam wonders, because it makes winning a slam seem a much bigger ahcievemtyn. i think every sport needs an 'ultimate prize', rather than a bunch of prizes of varying and debatable presitge. it makes for greater drama (hence my greater emphasis on slams than you in our discuission about your last blog). so never liked one slam wonders because to me they reduce the prestige of wining a slam. i mean, if you win a slam all youv'e done is oput yourself on the level of gston gaudio. that's why i thin winning two slam is so key. there are plenty of slam winners who aren't great players, but there are no players who've own two slams or more that aren't great players (although, of course, not necesarily all tiem greats.)

 

[Luxilon Borg]

One of the things I think you may be over looking is the fact that the players are SO, SO much fitter today that going deep into Wimby after the French is just as much about fitness as it is about making adjustments. As I noted, Sampras would skip the ENTIRE clay court season and show up fresh at Wimbledon, then have several months to recover for the US Open.

Becker would SKIP the French on numerous occasions to focus on the Big W..Lendl did it once and got to the final. This would be UNHEARD of today.

And you conveniently left out that Rafa after winning the Channel Slam, also has crashed out on 3 occasions before the third round.

Well, Rafa reached the 4th round of Wimbo in 2014, so according to your list of players above, that's a sign of him doing well there! :snicker :hug

As I often say, a long rally to Pete Sampras was that he'd have to hit a second serve. Fitness wasn't his issue. His issue was that he chose a style that was suited to the rat-a-tat game of grasscourt tennis, so he could win Wimbledon. That was how the game was then. You couldn't be sure of winning Wimbo if you stayed at the baseline. And you certainly couldn't win the FO playing the same way you did at Wimbledon. The adjustments were too great.

And players didn't skip the FO or clay season because they weren't fit. They were still the fittest players on tour. They skipped it for the reason I've been saying: clay was just too different to grass, and these men wanted to prepare for Wimbledon.

I see many of your points as well..

But I also see too many players that remind of me of the Rusedski's, the Wayne Arthur's, and the Goran's...we have Milos, Lopez, Kevin Anderson etc....

Perhaps El Dude is right and the reality of it is somewhere in between both our viewpoints.

Wherever the truth is, it's always nice to chat with you, my friend...

agree!

 

[Luxilon Borg]

So here are my additional questions:

Would Nole have won Wimby during those "pre homogenization" years? Would we even be having the discussion about a Career Slam? Could he have taken down a Kraijeck or a Goran or a Sampras on the pre carpet like grass and the pellets as balls?

Same questions about Rafa. Would he have the Career Slam back in 1994?

I am convinced Rog would have won any of the 4 in any era, regardless of how fast W was or how slow Garros was.