El Dude
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 10,331
- Reactions
- 6,100
- Points
- 113
I had similar questions, Luxilon Borg, although think the main problem is that we don't know what sort of player they would have been back then. Maybe they would have evolved differently?
So the only way to really speculate is to do so with the (probably false) assumption that they would have been the exact same player.
First of all, boy oh boy would it have been great to see Pete and Roger peaking at the same time. Can you imagine? My guess is that Pete would have had the edge at Wimbledon, Roger the edge on hards, and a big edge on clay. At the risk of sounding biased, Roger's game would have worked in any era, but if he played alongside a peak Sampras he probably would have won Wimby only 2-3 times, AO, FO and USO several times each. He probably would have had less total Slams--maybe 12-15--but a more even resume, maybe even a triple Career Slam.
As for Novak, I think he would have struggled more at Wimbledon and in the 90s in general. The sport was faster, with less attrition. Imagine him playing Roger in his prime, on the fastest surface on tour - that would be like playing Sampras at Wimbledon in the 90s. On the other hand, he would have utterly dominated the slower courts. As for Goran or Krajicek, I think we're going to see someone at some point beat Novak in a way that we can imagine Goran or Krajicek would have done, someone like Kyrgios or Fritz go up a level, and be able to beat Novak on faster surfaces with hard, sharp angled slices.
And Rafa...well, he would have been just as strong on clay and probably most hards, but probably significantly worse on grass and faster hards. I don't think he would have won Wimbledon in the 90s, except maybe once, at his very best.
So the only way to really speculate is to do so with the (probably false) assumption that they would have been the exact same player.
First of all, boy oh boy would it have been great to see Pete and Roger peaking at the same time. Can you imagine? My guess is that Pete would have had the edge at Wimbledon, Roger the edge on hards, and a big edge on clay. At the risk of sounding biased, Roger's game would have worked in any era, but if he played alongside a peak Sampras he probably would have won Wimby only 2-3 times, AO, FO and USO several times each. He probably would have had less total Slams--maybe 12-15--but a more even resume, maybe even a triple Career Slam.
As for Novak, I think he would have struggled more at Wimbledon and in the 90s in general. The sport was faster, with less attrition. Imagine him playing Roger in his prime, on the fastest surface on tour - that would be like playing Sampras at Wimbledon in the 90s. On the other hand, he would have utterly dominated the slower courts. As for Goran or Krajicek, I think we're going to see someone at some point beat Novak in a way that we can imagine Goran or Krajicek would have done, someone like Kyrgios or Fritz go up a level, and be able to beat Novak on faster surfaces with hard, sharp angled slices.
And Rafa...well, he would have been just as strong on clay and probably most hards, but probably significantly worse on grass and faster hards. I don't think he would have won Wimbledon in the 90s, except maybe once, at his very best.
