Wimbledon: battles of clones.

In Year 2078.

The ITF board has decided to allow clones of former tennis greats to take part to the competitions, to boost the popularity of the game worldwide . Every clone is perfectly trained and programmed to play in his prime (age 20 to 26).

Wimbledon will be played on a genetically modified grass which ensure an even pace rating of 38 and doesn't deteriorate as the tournament goes.

The top-8 seeding has been announced:

1) Sampras
2) Federer
3) Borg
4) McEnroe
5) Connors
6) Edberg
7) Becker
8) Agassi

How do you think the tournament would shape up?

This is my view : SF: Sampras - McEnroe / Borg - Federer - F/w: even chances for the 4 semifinalists to win the title.
.

I guess you've restricted your search to players who played entirely in the Open Era, hence no sign of Laver & co..

Subject to understanding what a "pace rating of 38 means" I'm not sure that Agassi should be there - I'd say that peak Ivanisevic or Stich would overall be better bets on a fast surface despite the former's meltdown in 1992.

Becker pushes Borg for the 4th SF place in my view and I'd have Sampras as the overall favourite but it's tight.

Just out of interest could a case be made for Nadal and Laver to being on the list at the expense of say Agassi? With the Grass season being so short and in Laver's day the US Open was played on Grass so the argument could be that he was a Grass Court specialist in some ways? Nadal a 5 time finalist and 2 time champion is a worthy shout. Thought provoking none the less.

My SF's I couldn't decide. The winner no doubt in my mind would Sampras. 7 out of 7 Finals. Ultimate S and V the Grass game has seen and probably ever will. Tricky who would be his opponent out of Borg and Federer. I think Borg would be more accustomed to Sampras's game than Federer. I know those will say Federer beat Pete in 2001, but I think Sampras in his peak against a Federer in his peak would a far closer encounter than that of 2001.

JK as it has been an interesting set of threads done and a imaginative way of conducting it too.

It's going to be Federer v Pete or even Federer v McEnroe.

I'd chose Fed v McEnroe cause I think McEnroe's trained like the others would have been the closest to Fed.

barrystar wrote:I guess you've restricted your search to players who played entirely in the Open Era

Yes, it is restricted to the Open era, the reason being that very few of us have first hand experience of prior era. Court speed 38 should be medium - fast, eg hopefully an average of the courts' conditions pre and post 2001.

So any logical reasons behind Agassi on the list and a two time champions and 5 time finalist Nadal not on the list? Is it supposed to be a credible list
or players you like more? Edberg should even be on that list.

Anyways

1. Sampras
2. Laver
3. Borg
4. Federer
5. McEnroe
6. Becker
7. Nadal
8. Connors

Sampras vs McEnroe SF 1 - Sampras wins in 4 sets
Borg vs Laver SF 2 - Laver winning in a close 5 sets

Sampras vs Laver Finals - Sampras winning in 4 sets.

A more credible result for the most dominant and greatest Wimbledon player ever.

The eight place could easily be assigned to Nadal. Probably on a faster surface, Agassi could have had the upper hand on him, not set in stone though.

As regards to Edberg: considering the guys who were around in his time (likes of Lendl, Becker, Mac, Courier, Agassi ,Sampras, Stich to mention few) difficult to rule out a serve and volley specialist like him.

Wimbledon has always been faster than USO in its open era until they messed it up in 2002 and thereafter.

I am hoping that Wimbledon will be again the faster slam and no way Nadal woudl have stood a chance in proper grass conds. He struggled enough on the medium pace that is the USO to give him a chance to win on grass.

Remember Wilander coudl win the USO, he could not get close to winning WImbledon and that was teh case of all clay court specialists, which Nadal is.

Tenez wrote: teh case of all clay court specialists, which Nadal is.

blah blah blah you're a broken record Tenez

The balls are extremely important too - bigger and relatively fluffy or smaller lighter and smoother.

For the conditions played in the 1990's I'd have Stich or Goran in for Agassi, for the post 2001 conditions I'd have Nadal in for Agassi.

For more average conditions I think it's a real toss for the last two places between Connors, Nadal, and Agassi.

You have a point about Eberg but i've always felt he could have done better at Wimbledon. He is one of the greatest Serve & volleyers ever so might have underachived on grass. He still had 2 slams at Wimbledon though. A talented and great player will always find ways to win slams whatever the competition is. Djokovic is even showing that now despite having two greats in Nadal and Federer. Why i'm particular suspect of eras like 2003-2007.

barrystar wrote:The balls are extremely important too - bigger and relatively fluffy or smaller lighter and smoother.

For the conditions played in the 1990's I'd have Stich or Goran in for Agassi, for the post 2001 conditions I'd have Nadal in for Agassi.

For more average conditions I think it's a real toss for the last two places between Connors, Nadal, and Agassi.

Yep - Agree with that. though what can we call "average conds"? I think between 90s and now it's extreme.

I think 2001 was pretty fast
2002 was very slow. That's when they implemented the bigger balls! It killed Sampras and we ended up with a Hewitt Nalby final.
2003 was faster than 2002 as many complained of the slow courts and the quality of final of the previous year (2002)
Then it was probably steady until 2006 and started slow it down again in 2007 onwards to allow the "great rallies and Fedal matches many wanted to see).

The strings amplified the effect of bigger balls and contributed largely in the slowing down of the court. PLayers running faster than ever contributed to the impression of slower courts too.

I woudl call 2003 "average" maybe.

Time to speed things up again....but I guess that's another matter.

Some how i don't see how Federer would have won on faster grass against great Serve and Volleyers in their primes either. We saw how he struggled on 90s type grass earlier on and he is just not a great volleyer to start with. Infact the faster the grass, the easier Sampras would clean up the matches in the battle of clones.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Some how i don't see how Federer would have won on faster grass against great Serve and Volleyers in their primes either. We saw how he struggled on 90s type grass earlier on and he is just not a great volleyer to start with. Infact the faster the grass, the easier Sampras would clean up the matches in the battle of clones.

Don't worry. Pete can picture it.

I'd favour Sampras for this one. Probably beating Federer in an epic battle in the final.

I'd go Sampras for this one, beating Federer in the final. Would have ben a great final with them at their peak.

Mcenroe in the semis.

I'd go for Federer beating Sampras in the final.

I actually think that Sampras is the best, most dominant Wimbledon champion of the open era.

However, Federer has shown over the years that he is an uncanny reader and neutraliser of the big serve. This was quite apparent in their one and only match where Fed was explosive off the returns from both wings, despite Pete regularly serving over 130 mph.

I believe peak Federer's return would give him the edge in this match-up and his serve, whilst not as big as Sampras's, is incredibly well placed and varied, thus Sampras would struggle to get the breaks required. There may be a few tie-breaks involved but then Federer is the best tie-break player in the history of the sport.

Federer has never played a server of Sampras' quality, at least not one with the all round game and SECOND serve to back it up. The only thing in his era that comes close is himself.

I think the 1999 final Sampras would take any Federer, he was unplayable, and handles the surface so well. Remember, the 1999 Agassi, who was the world no 1 who had just won the FO and was about to take the US and the Australian after that, and was at his absolute peak, who had been trained as a little kid to play millions of ball and develop his already natural lighting reflexes, was just standing there watching balls go past him. I think this matchup is 60/40 Sampras on grass (i.e. Sampras would win 60% of the time), 70/30 Federer on hard, 85/15 Federer on clay. I'll assume a court speed midway between eras.

Sampras is also the greatest Wimbledon champion because he has 7 titles. I think Federer has 6. If Federer had beaten Nadal in 2008 I think that would have made him the greatest ultimately (not at that moment since that would have been his 6th), such a big match to lose. I give Sampras the edge on raw grass game, so I think I want to see FEderer with 8 before I could put him ahead.

Henman Bill, why Federer 70/30 on hard court? Federer has 9 hc slams, Sampras has 7 and that's with him either missing the AO sometimes or never having it as a priority.

Henman Bill wrote:Federer has never played a server of Sampras' quality, at least not one with the all round game and SECOND serve to back it up. The only thing in his era that comes close is himself.

I think the 1999 final Sampras would take any Federer, he was unplayable, and handles the surface so well. Remember, the 1999 Agassi, who was the world no 1 who had just won the FO and was about to take the US and the Australian after that, and was at his absolute peak, who had been trained as a little kid to play millions of ball and develop his already natural lighting reflexes, was just standing there watching balls go past him. I think this matchup is 60/40 Sampras on grass (i.e. Sampras would win 60% of the time), 70/30 Federer on hard, 85/15 Federer on clay. I'll assume a court speed midway between eras.

Sampras is also the greatest Wimbledon champion because he has 7 titles. I think Federer has 6. If Federer had beaten Nadal in 2008 I think that would have made him the greatest ultimately (not at that moment since that would have been his 6th), such a big match to lose. I give Sampras the edge on raw grass game, so I think I want to see FEderer with 8 before I could put him ahead.

No way. Sampras serve was great for his time but with the luxilon strings he woud have suffered a lot in to days era especially with teh bigger balls. A young Hewitt already returned many of his serves in his feet and Pete could not handle it. A very young Federer has a positive record v Goran, Kraji, Philippoussis, AND beat Pete. Besides there was never a better server than Karlo and Federer can handle that serve so I can;t see Federer being troubled by Pete's serve. If Goran could handle Pete's serve, Federer could have too.

The serve is certainly not a shot that is going to decline at 30. All players improve their serve beyond that age.

Let's stop the excuses once and for all.

Agree Tenez 100%.

As I've already stated I consider Sampras to be Wimbledon's greatest champion but in the match-up against Federer on grass I would make Fed the slight favourite.

Once Federer gets a read on the Sampras serve, things would get very tough for Sampras. The comparison with Andre is mute. He, Andre, had a great return game but his serve meant that he was always vulnerable against Pete. Federer is a completely different kettle of fish; much more solid on serve and far greater versatility.

How would sampras break federer? Chip and charge would be obsolete against the modern strings; he would see winners whizzing by him all day. He would not be able to rally with Federer from the back of the court.

Federer has toyed with big servers throughout the years, destroying Philipoussis, Roddick, karlovic all on the W grass courts. Of course sampras has a much better net game than the above but he would be having to volley off his toes for most of the match.

Hilarious. Federer has never even being the best returner of serve in his generation. A peak Agassi a far better returner of serve couldn't stop a primed Pete and you think Federer would? They'll fly past him for fun. Even more funny to call the one dimensional server Ivo Karlovic. How potent is that serve of his when he meets capable returners like Nadal, Murray and Djokovic, all better returners than Federer? Infact how many breadsticks has Nadal given Ivo, something i believe Federer never even managed?

To build a case for Federer on return of serve is laughable.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Henman Bill, why Federer 70/30 on hard court? Federer has 9 hc slams, Sampras has 7 and that's with him either missing the AO sometimes or never having it as a priority.

Sampras won a similar amount of US Opens in his era as Federer did on his but tennis improved over time, so Federer is better. I could probably go and find more losses to lower ranked players in hard court tournaments for Sampras than for Federer. I just feel Federer has a brilliant back court game and would be winning rallies.

Tenez, I am assuming Sampras in 2078 would be able to chose the same racket as Federer and train on it, so I am assuming no string advantage.

Henman Bill wrote:Tenez, I am assuming Sampras in 2078 would be able to chose the same racket as Federer and train on it, so I am assuming no string advantage.

Of course but give them both the same strings (gut like in 2001) or bionic like in 2078 Federer will have the advantage.

I think Federer has as good a serve as Pete. Problem for Fed and all servers nowadays in that serving is not a great weapon nowadays cause the tour has done everything to prevent servers to dominate.

close one , Sampras starts as favourite coz of 7 titles, Fed 2nd seed, Borg 3rd seed, Becker 4th seed and Nadal in top 10 for sure.

Semi's

1]Sampras vs. Borg
2]Federer vs. Becker

Finals

Sampras vs Federer , Fed winning in 3.

A peak Federer simply beats everybody execpt for names reading "Nadal".