USO: battle of the clones

Year 2078.

The ITF board has allowed clones of former tennis great to take part of the competition to boost interest and revenue to a brand new level. Every clone is perfectly trained and programmed to play in his prime (age 20 to 26)

Here is the top seeding for the USO.

1) Federer
2) Sampras
3) Connors
4) McEnroe
5) Lendl
6) Edberg
7) Djokovic
8) Rafter

How in this case do you think the USO would shape up?

This is my view : SF: Mac - Sampras / Lendl - Federer - F: Fed - Mac - W: I assume even chances for Mac and Federer if in the top prime year. Fed to be the favourite immediaty before or after that period.

Tricky. The top 5 easily merit a place in the semi's and kicking one out is just a git.

Here's my semi's

Lendl v Sampras

McEnroe v Federer

Final

Federer v Lendl

Federer in 4

Lendl and Mac in their primes are so difficult to separate largely to their in-different nature of play. However, Lendl was just too consistent. I would fancy him to take a set of Federer, but a 2005 US Open Federer would maul him I think.

You don't expect a good standard between 2012 and 2078 then?

I would put Agassi in there (Rafter out). Any of the top 5 could win it but maybe Sampras least likely, Wimbledon was his better tournament.

Connors - Lendl SF- Connors winning
Sampras-McEnroe - Samprass winning

Samprass-Connors Finals - Sampras in 4 sets. The great man is the only player who could possibly have S&Ved his way to a USO win in 2002. Simply the greastest player at the USO ever.

Henman Bill wrote:You don't expect a good standard between 2012 and 2078 then?

I would put Agassi in there (Rafter out). Any of the top 5 could win it but maybe Sampras least likely, Wimbledon was his better tournament.

Hilarious! Tell me about it.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Connors - Lendl SF- Connors winning
Sampras-McEnroe - Samprass winning

Samprass-Connors Finals - Sampras in 4 sets. The great man is the only player who could possibly have S&Ved his way to a USO win in 2002. Simply the greastest player at the USO ever.

I think Mac would have owned Sampras quite comfortably.

Federer > Sampras > Mcenroe > Borg > Connors > Laver players always improve over time but they have better racket technology. Really I think Federer would win and Sampras would be the finalists if they all played with the rackets of their era. However if by "perfectly trained" you mean they all get a very very long period of training with a 2012, or 2078, racket, (what I'm assuming) the differences would become very small I think. I could see the sheer talents of others like Mcenroe catching him up.

Looking at their US Open records, Lendl made 8 finals in a row in his peak, Mcenroe made 7 QFs or better in a row, Federer obviously a superior record to Sampras while Sampras record was patchy and included two R4 exists in his peak years to Korda and Yzaga, his slightly greater number of US Open titles to Mcenroe and Lendl coming as a result of career longevity, rather than being at his peak, which is what the article discusses! Look at the peak years results (best 6 year streak say, as I don't have the time to check age 20-26 records) and Sampras record at the US Open is clearly inferior to Federer, Lendl and Mcenroe.

Mcenroe W-W-W-S-R4-W
Lendl F-F-W-W-W-F
Borg F-R4-F-Q-F-F
Sampras Q-F-W-R4-W-W
Federer W-W-W-W-W-F

Admittedly Borg's record is easily the worst, so I'll change my opinion to Sampras 4th favourite.

Henman Bill wrote:Federer > Sampras > Mcenroe > Borg > Connors > Laver players always improve over time but they have better racket technology. Really I think Federer would win and Sampras would be the finalists if they all played with the rackets of their era. However if by "perfectly trained" you mean they all get a very very long period of training with a 2012, or 2078, racket, (what I'm assuming) the differences would become very small I think. I could see the sheer talents of others like Mcenroe catching him up.

Looking at their US Open records, Lendl made 8 finals in a row in his peak, Mcenroe made 7 QFs or better in a row, Federer obviously a superior record to Sampras while Sampras record was patchy and included two R4 exists in his peak years to Korda and Yzaga, his slightly greater number of US Open titles to Mcenroe and Lendl coming as a result of career longevity, rather than being at his peak, which is what the article discusses! Look at the peak years results (best 6 year streak say, as I don't have the time to check age 20-26 records) and Sampras record at the US Open is clearly inferior to Federer, Lendl and Mcenroe.

Mcenroe W-W-W-S-R4-W
Lendl F-F-W-W-W-F
Borg F-R4-F-Q-F-F
Sampras Q-F-W-R4-W-W
Federer W-W-W-W-W-F

Admittedly Borg's record is easily the worst, so I'll change my opinion to Sampras 4th favourite.

Except Federer wasn't winning the USO at 20 and not at 21 either but 22. So between 22 and 26, that's 4 USO. Sampras won his first USO 1990 at 20 and by the time he was 26 in 1996 which fits then into the authors time line, he won 4 titles as well so how exactly does Federer have a better record? Infact i saw you convenienetly left out Sampras' record of 8 USO finals as well. So in his peak then Pete made 5 USO finals winning 4 and somehow that is worst.

Infact even making it 20-26 for Federer that is 4R 4R W W W W

Where is my dear friend, Laver, or the GOAT Pancho Gonzales in this whole thing?

Believe it or not S_A makes a good case about Sampras (pains me to say) but I feel his most dominance came at Wimbledon and if we ran a 'clones' at Wimbledon, anything less than a Sampras victory is ridiculous.

Lendl and Sampras certainly eptimised 'consistency' at the US Open. Sampras a winner at 19 and 31 is a sterling effort. Federer 5 times in a row winner and 6 times in a row finalist is just too hard to bet against. Has a much better HC game than Sampras given he has won 9 of his Slams on the HC to Pete's 7.

Sorry Simple Analyst, you're wrong. Pete won his first US Open having only just turned 19. Federer, Lendl and Mcenroe definately have the better US Open record in their peak years which is what this article is discussing.

Anyway we are not arguing over much. As I said originally any of the top 5 could win it and I have always liked Sampras. He was a great player.

To be honest Djokovic might turn out to be the best as the game is always moving on. Djokovic's level from the last US Open final would have been hard to beat for anyone in history.

Well he was going into his 20th year at least so not much harm to put it that way. Federer fans especially have an unfortunate habit of dragging down Sampras rather fast whenever his name is mentioned on threads like these. If the internet was this active in the 90s, he would have had such a cult following like we see for Federer now. For all it's worth Sampras throughout his career was a dominant force and performed very well across 3 slams. The USO for example, 8 finals. At Wimbledon he made 7 finals winning all 7. Infact Sampras had a better record at the USO and Wimbledon than Federer. Even at the AO, he still made 3 finals. The only weakness was clay but his medical condition was well documented. With a little interest at the AO and foresight into how a few years down the line many will be pushing his slam performance under the carpet, we would have seen more effort in slams like AO from Sampras.

Anyway, there is little to know who would have won between who at peak but to just say Sampras will be the least favourite is off the mark. We saw what he could even do at 31 years when he wanted to win that last slam. Beating the younger players en route to the USO and infact making 3 straight finals.

I would put Fed - Mac in semi's and Lendl - Sampras in semi's

Fed - Ivan finals

Fed for the title.