PDA

View Full Version : Watching 1999 French Open Final...


FedererForehand
05-18-2009, 08:02 PM
Watching Agassi v. Medvedev. Anyone know what from (or PJ) Medvedev is playing with here. Looks like some kind of Head Ti series frame but I just can't tell... :confused:

!Tym
05-20-2009, 06:34 AM
Watching Agassi v. Medvedev. Anyone know what from (or PJ) Medvedev is playing with here. Looks like some kind of Head Ti series frame but I just can't tell... :confused:

I don't believe it's a paint job. It was the Fischer VT Pro Classic 90/Vacuum Pro 90/Vacuum Pro Classic 90 model that many pros used throughout the 90s. Wilander, Leconte used it for a spell, but the most well-known user by far was Michael Stich. The Vacuum Pro 90 was the Fischer pure player's racket offering the same way the POG Mid, Prestige Classic 600, and Pro Staff 6.0 85 were.

The name was changed slightly a few times (i.e. as listed above), as was the paint job. The same racket model was given different cosmetics/paint scheme like five times! That must be some kind of record. The Medvedev paint scheme was the last one before the racket was finally discontinued. To this day, MANY people pine for the re-release of this classic racket.

There is NO better feeling tennis racket imo, and I mean this sincerely. It is the ULTIMATE in racket feel. It's like French truffle of your hand. MANY people will agree with me that there no racket in the history of all mankind even comes close to the pure ball feel of the Vacuum Pro 90s.

WHY Fish...WHY!!!

Oh, the agony.

Of course...that agony can't compare to the agony Medvedev must feel in looking back at that match. What's truly shocking in retrospective is that Medvedev was apparently only 24 that match!

He is imo, BY FAR, the greatest waste of tennis talent there ever was. Because you don't know what racket he was using, I'm guessing you weren't following tennis in the early 90s when Medvedev first burst onto the scene. He was everything Kafelnikov was, but just a little bit taller, just a bit better serve, and the little extra top gear in pace when he wanted to that Kafelnikov never had.

He was a virtual clone of Kafelnikov in game, but imo better.

There was a reason why he was one of the most highly touted newcomers there ever was when he first came up. His potential was maybe not unlimited, but he certainly had the ability to one-up anything Kafelnikov ever did.

This said, I will say that besides his work ethic and lack of genuine love or dedication toward the game, his biggest other failing was that he was most definitely NOT a big match player imo.

He was imo somewhat of a choker. You saw it in that French final, and you saw it in the 93 French semis when he lost the first at love to his best friend Bruguera.

Bruguera came right out of the gates on fire, but Medvedev being clearly tight as a drum and peeing in his pants also had a lot to do with it.

But again, looking back, it's astonishing that Medvedev was still soooo young back then. He completely went into a shell after that match never to be heard from again. It reminds me a bit of Coria in that regard, but imo, Medvedev was a scarier opponent at his best. Like I said he had the rock solidness all around and talent of Kafelnikov, but the piercing point ending power from any position when he wanted to that Kafelnikov never did.

Imo, he was a cross between Safin and Kafelnikov. Safin's power, but more selective about pulling the trigger, more patient, more consistent, a better foundation on how to masterfully construct points a la Kafelnikov. Serve not as much a weapon as Safin's, but certainly more offensive than Kafelnikov's. Volleys better than Safin, but slightly worse than Kafelnikov. Return slightly behind Kafelnikov and Safin, but still very formidable in this regard.

Overall, Medvedev ranks as quite possibly my second favorite player of all time to watch now looking back. Biggest waste of talent of his generation HANDS DOWN, and one of the biggest wastes of potential ever as well.

Chopin
05-20-2009, 08:21 PM
I was watching that match on the TTC the other day. I also saw the 1983 final between Wilander and Noah. I guess I had forgotten how much tennis used to suck. They were hitting top-spin moonballs like WTA players (I'm joking about the WTA players). But really, Federer and Nadal would destroy either of those players. The pace was so slow that Wilander didn't bother making any attempt to recover to the center of the court (or move at all) during some points. Thank goodness we're witnessing such a great era of tennis with modern strokes and modern racquets.

anointedone
05-20-2009, 10:06 PM
He was a virtual clone of Kafelnikov in game, but imo better.

Is that why Kafelnikov won 2 slam titles and Medvedev won 0?

!Tym
05-20-2009, 10:58 PM
Is that why Kafelnikov won 2 slam titles and Medvedev won 0?

I never, ever, EVER said he won more slams now did I? I said, he was a WASTE of *potential*. They are NOT the same thing. That is all. Imo, he had more potential than Kafelnikov and I think Moose Malloy has pointed that out in the past as well. His game was cut from the same cloth as Kafelnikov, but Medvedev's head wasn't in the game much of the time.

Case in point, after losing that devastating final, what did he do? He stopped playing cold turky in entirety, not training, not doing nothing, to clear his head...until he showed up at the US Open with zilch prep and promptly got booted out like he wasn't even there by Kafelnikov.

When he lost to nobody Delgado at Wimbledon shortly before he retired, he said, his head wasn't in it right now. That he was never the kind of guy you could force to play tennis, that he knew he had the talent to beat anyone out there, but that you could never FORCE him to go train and do it if he didn't want to, that the other guys schedule their lives around their tennis, but for him it was always schedule tennis around his life.

Did you hear what the old school coach of his Lepeshin who first rose him to prominence and then went with Kafelnikov after Medvedev fired him had to say about him? He said, see what happens to guys like Medvedev when you stop pushing, they go out and buy all the fancy cars and party, etc. but don't want to work on the tennis court anymore once they get a taste of the good life. In other words, Medvedev was a guy you constantly had to PUSH to train and compete hard, but that he was always resisting that.

I remember reading an old article on him when he first burst onto the scene and won ATP Newcomer of the Year and was being hailed as a possible future great. It was said that as a kid he had to be FORCED to play tennis (his mom was a coach), and that he was always being dragged along to the courts with his sister (also a pro, but nowhere near as gifted). But that he never wanted anything to do with it. But the problem for him was that he was too good, he got good so quickly, so easily, and won so much, and then he started getting sponsorships, and free stuff, and he said at that point, what was he gonna do, stop and return the rackets?

Put it this way, Agassi had a well-known rebellious streak in him when he was young, but deep down you knew he did GENUINELY love the sport. You can't fake that. The guy was emotionally devastated in THREE grand slam finals, but that just ate away at him even more, and in the end made him a stronger competitor inside.

There is absolutely no reason someone capable of beating Gustavo Kuerten during his prime in straight sets at the French Open after not having won back to back matches on tour since October of the previous year or whatever it was that they said, should go that long without being able to string together two matches in a row. It's absolutely absurd.

His attitude after the Delgado loss says it all. There is no way you will ever come close to achieving your potential when you don't genuinely love the field you are in, imo. Natural ability can only get you so far, but when you get to the best of the best at the world level, the other guys CARE too much to let you just waltz your way to grand slam victory.

Furthermore, like I said, on paper, imo, there is NO DOUBT that Medvedev could do everything Kafelnikov could do, but with heavier artillery. Kafelnikov was a consistent B+/A- pace type guy. He'd throw you a good solid, 90-94mph fastballs all day long and spot it well, but he never had that extra gear in terms of pace where he could outright end points on a dime if he wanted to, to keep you honest. Medvedev had that. He had the 95-98 mph fastball in his back pocket when he wanted to, when he needed it.

Look, and I say this as a Kafelnikov fan who has defended him many a time on here. I consider Kafelnikov one of the elite talents of his generation and have always maintained that. But on paper, there is no reason Medvedev wasn't capable of one-upping his career accomplishments. Kafelnikov may have been a money grubber, but you can see on the seniors tour that he had more of a genuine DEEP-DOWN love for the game than Medvedev ever had. Medvedev was the "reluctant genius" type growing up, and believe me I know ALL about that syndrome...and it's pitfalls.

The other thing was...as I said, Medvedev was a bit of a choker. Kafelnikov may not have exactly been Steffi Graff out there, but imo, he was definitely much more of a big match player than Medvedev ever was. Case in point, the Olympic finals. If he wanted it bad enough, he was a truly great competitor and not liable to choking, and VISIBLY tensing up in the motor movements, the way Medvedev was.

The other thing is, say what you will, but Medvedev faced murderer's lane at the French. He was very successful there, but let's see who he got vanguished by. Kuerten in a tight five setter in 97. Blown out by a zoning Bruguera two years in a row in 93 and 94. Would Kafelnikov have won the 96 French had Muster not gone out to Stich having his annual, once a year, playing out of his mind and no one in the world will beat me today, days? Imo, no.

Kafelnikov's problem was that he had mental blocks against certain players where I felt he conceded defeat before the match was even played. Medvedev didn't have that problem, but then again he also was a choker with very shaky nerves when the going got tight imo.

CEvertFan
05-20-2009, 11:30 PM
I was watching that match on the TTC the other day. I also saw the 1983 final between Wilander and Noah. I guess I had forgotten how much tennis used to suck. They were hitting top-spin moonballs like WTA players (I'm joking about the WTA players). But really, Federer and Nadal would destroy either of those players. The pace was so slow that Wilander didn't bother making any attempt to recover to the center of the court (or move at all) during some points. Thank goodness we're witnessing such a great era of tennis with modern strokes and modern racquets.

Neither Wilander or Noah was what you would consider to be a power player. Wilander was a steady baseliner and Noah was a net rusher. Given that fact and the old racquets they are using, makes for slower tennis especially on the clay. More power doesn't necessarily mean better playing.

grafselesfan
05-20-2009, 11:46 PM
Thank goodness we're witnessing such a great era of tennis with modern strokes and modern racquets.

You truly have to be joking. Tennis was much better in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and even early 2000s than it is now. The womens game especialy is a pile of slop today. All the same one dimensional hard hitting baseliner, with no variety, no finesse, no use of spins or angles, no thought, no all court play, no point construction, no use of the court. Then even on top of that apart from the great Williams sisters who are still only half of their former best, none of the rest can even supplement that with decent serving, an adequate volley to even come in and comfortably put away a floater, any court coverage or defensive ability, and even adequate mental toughness to atleast put away a won match.

Swissv2
05-21-2009, 12:06 AM
You truly have to be joking. Tennis was much better in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and even early 2000s than it is now. The womens game especialy is a pile of slop today. All the same one dimensional hard hitting baseliner, with no variety, no finesse, no use of spins or angles, no thought, no all court play, no point construction, no use of the court. Then even on top of that apart from the great Williams sisters who are still only half of their former best, none of the rest can even supplement that with decent serving, an adequate volley to even come in and comfortably put away a floater, any court coverage or defensive ability, and even adequate mental toughness to atleast put away a won match.

Are you serious????? *ok the womens game, yes. But the men's game? Come on!*

CEvertFan
05-21-2009, 03:39 AM
Are you serious????? *ok the womens game, yes. But the men's game? Come on!*


Today's players couldn't do a quarter of what 70s and 80s men could do with a wood racquet or in Connors' case his trusty Wilson T-2000 metal racquet, but give the 70s players modern racquets and they could do more than they were able to in the 70s and 80s. I'll say it again - power alone doesn't mean better tennis.

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-signs108.gif

Chopin
05-21-2009, 10:20 AM
Neither Wilander or Noah was what you would consider to be a power player. Wilander was a steady baseliner and Noah was a net rusher. Given that fact and the old racquets they are using, makes for slower tennis especially on the clay. More power doesn't necessarily mean better playing.

Prime Federer and Nadal would crush either of those players--any racquets, any surface.

Chopin
05-21-2009, 10:21 AM
You truly have to be joking. Tennis was much better in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and even early 2000s than it is now. The womens game especialy is a pile of slop today. All the same one dimensional hard hitting baseliner, with no variety, no finesse, no use of spins or angles, no thought, no all court play, no point construction, no use of the court. Then even on top of that apart from the great Williams sisters who are still only half of their former best, none of the rest can even supplement that with decent serving, an adequate volley to even come in and comfortably put away a floater, any court coverage or defensive ability, and even adequate mental toughness to atleast put away a won match.

You know that Wilander played on the ATP, not WTA, right?

rod99
05-21-2009, 11:34 AM
Prime Federer and Nadal would crush either of those players--any racquets, any surface.

clueless, ignorant post.

Q&M son
05-21-2009, 01:06 PM
Overall, Medvedev ranks as quite possibly my second favorite player of all time to watch now looking back. Biggest waste of talent of his generation HANDS DOWN, and one of the biggest wastes of potential ever as well.

Agree 100%.
Talent wasted

tintin
05-21-2009, 01:07 PM
You truly have to be joking. Tennis was much better in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and even early 2000s than it is now. The womens game especialy is a pile of slop today. All the same one dimensional hard hitting baseliner, with no variety, no finesse, no use of spins or angles, no thought, no all court play, no point construction, no use of the court. Then even on top of that apart from the great Williams sisters who are still only half of their former best, none of the rest can even supplement that with decent serving, an adequate volley to even come in and comfortably put away a floater, any court coverage or defensive ability, and even adequate mental toughness to atleast put away a won match.
I suggest you watch Mauresmo vs Dementieva on youtube from Madrid:roll:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYqbXGpLY20

enjoy ball bashing from Dementieva

Lefty78
05-21-2009, 06:05 PM
Given that fact and the old racquets they are using, makes for slower tennis especially on the clay. More power doesn't necessarily mean better playing.

I personally think it's worth mentioning that the Wilson PS 85 was available at this time, in addition to the fact that natural gut was the obvious string of choice back then. Gut has all the power in the world, and stiff frames could be found.

What I'm really trying to say is that the technology Sampras used to win the US open in 2003 was already around at that time. There are no excuses- Wilander is a cupcake by modern standards. Tennis has left guys like him in the dust. You can't survive anymore without weapons, even on clay.

Mike Bulgakov
05-21-2009, 08:22 PM
I don't believe it's a paint job. It was the Fischer VT Pro Classic 90/Vacuum Pro 90/Vacuum Pro Classic 90 model that many pros used throughout the 90s. Wilander, Leconte used it for a spell, but the most well-known user by far was Michael Stich. The Vacuum Pro 90 was the Fischer pure player's racket offering the same way the POG Mid, Prestige Classic 600, and Pro Staff 6.0 85 were.

The name was changed slightly a few times (i.e. as listed above), as was the paint job. The same racket model was given different cosmetics/paint scheme like five times! That must be some kind of record. The Medvedev paint scheme was the last one before the racket was finally discontinued. To this day, MANY people pine for the re-release of this classic racket.

There is NO better feeling tennis racket imo, and I mean this sincerely. It is the ULTIMATE in racket feel. It's like French truffle of your hand. MANY people will agree with me that there no racket in the history of all mankind even comes close to the pure ball feel of the Vacuum Pro 90s.

WHY Fish...WHY!!!
Medvedev played with the Fischer Pro Classic 98 in that match.

Chopin
05-21-2009, 09:40 PM
clueless, ignorant post.

Oh, come on. A 19 year old Sampras beat Wilander at the U.S. Open when the guy was still 26. Not long after that Gilbert was beating him in the first round of majors. And when the guy was Federer's age Agassi was serving him double breadsticks in the first round of the French! Would Wilander have beat Nadal or Federer at the French (all players in their primes)? The answer to that is a resounding no.

You think these old generations compare to the top pros mechanics wise? Granted the racquets changed, but the depth and athleticism in tennis have only gone up. That's why it's such an absolute joke when people gush about Laver and the country club player generation.

grafrules
05-21-2009, 10:19 PM
Wilander was burnt out after 1988 and never the same player again. Evaluating his results after 1988 is silly and pointless. By the way Agassi's easy win over Wilander at the French was in 1994 when Wilander was coming out of retirement at nearly 30 for a few final years. I dont think he was even in the top 100 at the time.

rod99
05-22-2009, 04:31 AM
Oh, come on. A 19 year old Sampras beat Wilander at the U.S. Open when the guy was still 26. Not long after that Gilbert was beating him in the first round of majors. And when the guy was Federer's age Agassi was serving him double breadsticks in the first round of the French! Would Wilander have beat Nadal or Federer at the French (all players in their primes)? The answer to that is a resounding no.

You think these old generations compare to the top pros mechanics wise? Granted the racquets changed, but the depth and athleticism in tennis have only gone up. That's why it's such an absolute joke when people gush about Laver and the country club player generation.


the wilander of 1989 was only a shadow of the wilander of 1988. and i won't even mention 1994 b/c that's ridiculous to even bring up. the fact of the matter is that the top pros of any generation could have competed with the top pros of the current generation. the current generation might win and they might lose, but it would be a competitive match either way. nobody would get "crushed". there is no way that nadal could take the kind of swings he takes with the racket technology of the early '80s. he'd mishit every other ball.

ohlori
05-22-2009, 09:35 AM
the wilander of 1989 was only a shadow of the wilander of 1988. and i won't even mention 1994 b/c that's ridiculous to even bring up. the fact of the matter is that the top pros of any generation could have competed with the top pros of the current generation. the current generation might win and they might lose, but it would be a competitive match either way. nobody would get "crushed". there is no way that nadal could take the kind of swings he takes with the racket technology of the early '80s. he'd mishit every other ball.

A player like Andres Gomez lost 6-2, 6-2, 6-1 to Björn Borg at Roland Garros, but he could beat Andre Agassi in the 1990 Roland Garros final.
There obviously was quite some talent around in the 1980s after the tennis boom in the 70s.
Most players back then played with wooden rackets in their formative years and their styles didn't change overnight because of new technology.

droliver
05-22-2009, 10:19 AM
there is no way that nadal could take the kind of swings he takes with the racket technology of the early '80s. he'd mishit every other ball.

There were already modern graphite rackets available at that time (POG, Wilson Pro Staff, Head Graphite Edge, Yonex R-10 & R-7) which are not substancially removed from players rackets of 2009 in terms of materials

Chopin
05-22-2009, 11:21 AM
Each to their own. I think Wilander would have gotten blown away against Federer or Nadal on the clay.

Wilander was a great player of his day though. He's not as over-rated as Laver (the most over-rated player in the history of tennis).

Chopin
05-22-2009, 11:22 AM
There were already modern graphite rackets available at that time (POG, Wilson Pro Staff, Head Graphite Edge, Yonex R-10 & R-7) which are not substancially removed from players rackets of 2009 in terms of materials

Especially since guys still use the pro staff and POG!

rod99
05-22-2009, 12:05 PM
rackets aside, the strings that were available in the early 1980s wouldn't have nearly the same effect on the ball that the strings of today do. you didn't see guys like you do today consistently hitting winners from 10 feet behind the baseline, or be able to dip the ball at the net rushers feet from any position on the court. nadal/federer etc wouldn't be able to do the same things with the ball in 1983 that they are able to now.

Chopin
05-22-2009, 04:30 PM
rackets aside, the strings that were available in the early 1980s wouldn't have nearly the same effect on the ball that the strings of today do. you didn't see guys like you do today consistently hitting winners from 10 feet behind the baseline, or be able to dip the ball at the net rushers feet from any position on the court. nadal/federer etc wouldn't be able to do the same things with the ball in 1983 that they are able to now.

To an extent, you're right, of course. But--the main reason we didn't see guys going what Federer/Nadal do is because of their technique/they simply were not as good. The level of play in tennis has only gone up for the most part (there are exceptions, such as volleying and the transition game) but even so, most of the past greats just aren't as great as today's players.

Z-Man
05-22-2009, 04:35 PM
Oh, come on. A 19 year old Sampras beat Wilander at the U.S. Open when the guy was still 26. Not long after that Gilbert was beating him in the first round of majors. And when the guy was Federer's age Agassi was serving him double breadsticks in the first round of the French! Would Wilander have beat Nadal or Federer at the French (all players in their primes)? The answer to that is a resounding no.

You think these old generations compare to the top pros mechanics wise? Granted the racquets changed, but the depth and athleticism in tennis have only gone up. That's why it's such an absolute joke when people gush about Laver and the country club player generation.

Say what you want about Wilander, but Laver was the real deal in any generation on any surface.

Chopin
05-22-2009, 09:15 PM
Say what you want about Wilander, but Laver was the real deal in any generation on any surface.

Give prime Sampras or Federer a wooden racquet, put him up against prime Laver. Sampras or Federer crushes Laver. Every single time, baby.

http://www2.tennisserver.com/images/photofeed/2007/hall-of-fame/070717/IMG_3841sm.jpg

Laver's country club generation is vastly over-rated. Tennis was a joke compared with what it is today. It takes about 30 seconds of watching Laver serve on youtube to realize that his strokes are nothing compared to today's players (with the the exception of his volleying skills).

grafselesfan
05-22-2009, 09:17 PM
Give prime Sampras or Federer a wooden racquet, put him up against prime Laver. Sampras or Federer crushes Laver. Every single time, baby.

http://www2.tennisserver.com/images/photofeed/2007/hall-of-fame/070717/IMG_3841sm.jpg

Laver's country club generation is vastly over-rated. Tennis was a joke compared with what it is today.

Laver even with a wood racquet hits every shot other than the forehand better than Federer can with a graphite. His backhand, return of serve, volleys, are all way better than Federer especialy, and that is playing in the 60s with wood while Federer is playing in the 2000s with graphite.

Chopin
05-22-2009, 10:35 PM
Laver even with a wood racquet hits every shot other than the forehand better than Federer can with a graphite. His backhand, return of serve, volleys, are all way better than Federer especialy, and that is playing in the 60s with wood while Federer is playing in the 2000s with graphite.

Completely absurd. They're different classes of players. Federer is much more athletic. Maybe Laver volleyed better than Federer. OK. But everything else is Federer by a mile. By your logic, Laver should be able to beat Federer with a wooden racquet while Federer is playing with a graphite? What? Federer would probably serve Laver a love set playing with a wooden racquet. What a joke. How fast did Laver serve with a wooden racquet. About as fast as Serena Williams? Heck, forget Federer, a top 50 player would crush Laver if the guy was stuck playing with a wooden racquet.

grafselesfan
05-22-2009, 10:41 PM
Completely absurd. They're different classes of players. Federer is much more athletic. Maybe Laver volleyed better than Federer. OK. But everything else is Federer by a mile. By your logic, Laver should be able to beat Federer with a wooden racquet while Federer is playing with a graphite? What? Federer would probably serve Laver a love set playing with a wooden racquet. What a joke.

Yes Laver with a wooden racquet would probably even beat Federer with a graphite racquet. That is how superior he is. You obviously have never seen Laver play. Federer is in truth one of the most overrated players of all time, male or female. He collected alot of titles vs an unusually weak field, and yet even with the benefit of such a weak field he still didnt break any major records, atleast not yet. Of course now that the field has some semblance of strength he is struggling to scrape together the odd wins to even get those records he is just shy of now.

Chopin
05-22-2009, 10:45 PM
Yes Laver with a wooden racquet would probably even beat Federer with a graphite racquet. That is how superior he is. You obviously have never seen Laver play. Federer is in truth one of the most overrated players of all time, male or female. He collected alot of titles vs an unusually weak field, and yet even with the benefit of such a weak field he still didnt break any major records, atleast not yet. Of course now that the field has some semblance of strength he is struggling to scrape together the odd wins to even get those records he is just shy of now.

OK. We'll agree to disagree.

chrisdaniel
05-22-2009, 10:46 PM
Each to their own. I think Wilander would have gotten blown away against Federer or Nadal on the clay.

Wilander was a great player of his day though. He's not as over-rated as Laver (the most over-rated player in the history of tennis).

You have no idea how good Laver was. :-?

So you just want us to say that the players now are way better than the past. That will make you happy? Sorry It's not that simple.

grafselesfan
05-22-2009, 10:47 PM
OK. We'll agree to disagree.

Fair enough. I have to ask you atleast though do you really think Federer's backhand is superior to Laver's? Laver had an incredible backhand, one of the best ever. Federer's backhand is nice vs many opponents but becomes a mess when confronted with either heavy topspin or extreme pace.

rod99
05-23-2009, 05:46 AM
let's be realistic here....federer would crush laver if federer was playing with today's rackets and laver was playing with a wood racket. likewise, laver would have crushed federer if he was playing with today's rackets (while he was in his prime) and federer was playing with a wood racket. HOWEVER, neither one would "crush" the other if they were playing with similar technology. anybody who thinks otherwise is absurd.

Chopin
05-23-2009, 12:09 PM
Fair enough. I have to ask you atleast though do you really think Federer's backhand is superior to Laver's? Laver had an incredible backhand, one of the best ever. Federer's backhand is nice vs many opponents but becomes a mess when confronted with either heavy topspin or extreme pace.

Well, Laver hit with a ton of topspin for his day, but if he's playing with a wooden racquet and using his old school grip, he's not going to have the pace or topspin to bother Federer's backhand. I mean, Federer's backhand is really only vulnerable against Nadal. Laver's backhand would fare no better.

If Federer is allowed to play with his K90 in this hypothetical, Federer bagels Laver easily. And like I said, it takes about 2 minutes for someone like me, who has coached and taught tennis to see that these old school players from Laver's generation have antique strokes that just aren't as effective as today's players. In addition, in the old days you're taking players from a much, much smaller pool of athletes, before tennis was the global game it was today. These country club players from Laver's generation would be crushed by the top pros--any racquets, any surface.