At their best, who would win?

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by Graphiteking, Dec 26, 2012.

  1. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,022
    And they also say Fed benefitted from a modern racquet and string. Yeah, so much benefit for having to deal with constant barrage with tremendous topspin, fast pace, and devastating serve by his peers. Players in the old days with the wooden racquet never had to deal with these onslaught. It's true that their racquet with a smaller head is not as effective as the modern racquet, but the game was slow, there's much less action on the ball, not much imposing.

    Mastering the modern racquet is harder than the old racquet, especially for a player with a 1 handed bh. The 1 handed bh rallies from the baseline was never tested as great as today. To be honest, I don't believe Rosewall's 1 handed bh would be as effective as it was in the 60s, and he probably settle to play 2 handed.
     
    #51
  2. treblings

    treblings Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,406
    playing a 1hbh was much more difficult with old wooden racquets. more weight and less sweetspot.
    chances are Rosewall would hit with a different grip today and topspin rather than slice-drive. thereĀ“s no reason he should play a two-hander
     
    #52
  3. bigjimbofan

    bigjimbofan New User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    85
    Connors in 5 !
     
    #53
  4. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,094
    The Roland-Garros 2011 semi-final is a good testament of Fed's backhand. On his worst surface, against the best player of the moment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRmUIwyxpTg

    His backhand shouldn't be judged only against Nadal on clay.
     
    #54
  5. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    TomT, Thanks that you detailed argue against my statements.

    Just a few points. Both of us have watched much more current tennis than that of Gonzalez, Hoad, Rosewall and Laver. Thus there is the danger to overrate the modern game.

    Federer's backhand is mostly a defensive slice unlike to those of the players of the older times, even that of slice king Rosewall's whose backhand was often a drive with a slice touch.

    You overrate Federer vastly. He is not the strongest of our days: at least Nadal and Djokovic are stronger. And he is surely not by far the most talented player of all time. At least Hoad, Rosewall, Laver, Santana, Nastase and McEnroe were more talented.
     
    #55
  6. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    abmk, It's just a pity that Federer shows his best backhands and volleys rather seldom ahgainst Nadal and others...
     
    #56
  7. Graphiteking

    Graphiteking Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2012
    Messages:
    158
    Did you just say Fed bh was a defensive slice? How did he win all those tourneys? With a defensive slice? BobbyOne, what do you have against Fed?
     
    #57
  8. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,339
    Forgetting about any particularly player, the hypothetical best player in my opinion must not have any weaknesses to pick on and as many offensive weapons as possible. Preferably the player should have an awesome serve, backhand, forehand and volley plus great movement. Let's say a player has most of this but he really has a poor volley. A guy like Djokovic may be able to somehow stay with this player and draw him into the net somehow and he would lose, despite being superior to Djokovic in all other aspects.

    A player may have a problem with his forehand when players hit off pace to him. That's a weakness. Don Budge developed a weakness with his overhead so Bobby Riggs lobbed him to death and beat him in a tour because of this.

    I've seen guys like Arthur Ashe go into the zone with huge serves, volleys, backhands and forehands, all strong attacking weapons. There is nothing to really work on. But Ashe often didn't keep it up and guys like Newcombe would wait for the letdown and often win.

    So who in tennis history fits this? Remember the ideal is the fewest flaws and many attacking weapons.

    I have my opinions on past players but I'll leave the present players out.
     
    #58
  9. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    TMF, Laver and Rosewall had to deal with super serves from Gonzalez, Newcombe, Smith and Tanner. Thus no progress since then.
     
    #59
  10. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Graphiteking, I don't have anything against Federer but I cannot stand those many posters who rate Roger as a God.

    Federer won clearly less tournaments than many of the past have won.

    He has an excellent service and a super forehand and footwork.

    He won 17 GS tournaments partly because in some of his peak years there was rather weak competition (Hewitt, Roddick, Safin instead peak Nadal and Djokovic).
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2012
    #60
  11. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,483
    This has been beaten to death...I will say it once again, the title count achievable during those older days cannot be directly correlated to today's game. Players don't play that many tournaments nowadays and it's impossible to achieve a crazy title count (say 120 or above....100 is achievable but even that seems completely farfetched). Why do you think after Lendl no other player since has gotten over 100 titles? I mean Agassi, Sampras, Federer, Nadal these are all time greats in the upper echelons, yet none of them have 100 titles, nowhere even close to the vicinity (and they're all, maybe Agassi aside, DEFINITELY better than Lendl, who has many more total titles). It can't be achieved under the current schedules the players play...unless they win just about every single tournament they enter, every single year of their careers. And that's just crazy talk. As dominant as Fed was (and he rewrote the history books basically) he dominated and dominated and still isn't close to 100 total titles (and his really good peak years began in 2003, that's 9 years on tour so far mind you since his prime began... furthermore he's got 14 years total on tour). And he is an extreme example.

    No one in the future is getting close the 200 record by Laver. Hell even 100 titles I doubt I will see touched in my lifetime. I look that Laver won 22 titles in 1962, no clue as to how many more he entered that year. Fed's entering as of now (probably will skip some of these) 14 total for next year as an example. Even optimistically, 5-7 titles out of those won would be spectacular (considering majority of tourneys he enters are Majors and Masters 1000). Just a different standard nowadays man. I still feel you are not going to understand this but whatever. As far as I am concerned...that 200 titles record is amazing no doubt, but it's a relic of the past that cannot be replicated under modern circumstances. Similar to Wilt Chamberlain's insane statistical numbers back in the day (they had different rules too), ain't nobody even getting close to averaging 50 PPG ever again. It's a record which has no modern plausibility.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2012
    #61
  12. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,483
    And BTW Bobby in regards to the weak era crap cause I'm sick of hearing that (not just from you, but from a bunch of haters and critics)...Fed won his first major in 2003. Nadal won his in 2005. Since Nadal won his first major and catapulted himself into one of the all time greats, Fed has still managed to outscore him in the major count, hold him from #1 ranking domination and has is still standing tallest as of right now (Nadal's out of the picture). Old man Fed managed to stop Djokovic from "hypothetically" (that word gets sooo much use around here so I figure I'll give it a shot) winning all 4 majors last year when he beat him at the French Open (beat him justifiably, and Murray as well in the next match at Wimbledon 2012). Fed is at 31, with a 1 handed backhand, playing under slower conditions, which are frankly about as perfectly suitable as you can get for his primary current adversaries (the grinders Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray) and still manages to get back to #1, win majors, get numerous titles, hold his own, post an incredible winning %, etc. He's playing under adverse conditions, and has been for a while, and still kicking *** against Nadal and Djokovic, and we still hear weak era crap. Scary part is he is not even done yet, more will only be added to his legacy and he's already at the very top. Come on now. If Fed was absolutely sucking right now, I can buy the weak era argument, but Fed is not just holding his own against the 2nd generation of challengers (1st being the Safins, Roddicks, Agassis, Ferreros), but actually continually rewriting the history books, year after year. If Fed had played Nadal more on faster surfaces more suitable to Fed's game as opposed to the vast majority of their actual matches being well tailor made for Nadal's spin on the game to take advantage of, the H2H would look way different. Off of clay, Fed actually leads the H2H 2-1 (grass and hard courts). On indoors Nadal actually hasn't even won a match, has only taken 1 set off from Fed. Now Nadal is the clay GOAT, yet Fed actually has 2 wins against him on clay, not bad all things considered. You need to look at the H2H objectively. Actually, I think that the fact that Fed still has 10 wins over Nadal despite all the adverse conditions possible, and since he's a weak era champ as many of you claim (utter garbage), proves how good he is.

    Lastly, we're not saying he's a God. However, as far as I'm concerned, at the end of they day, without speculating and nitpicking on little biased specifics and just observing pure facts (not to mention everything that has been documented with him, every spectacular shot), he's as close as you get to the Greatest of All Time in the male game, and he's still not done yet (probably will play until 2016)
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2012
    #62
  13. TomT

    TomT Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    1,954
    Location:
    Fort Lauderdale, FL
    I agree that there is that danger. However, I've played more old style tennis than the modern game, and probably watched about the same amount of each.

    From what I've seen of players like Gonzalez, the Aussies and Americans of the '50s, '60s and '70s, Nastase, Amritraj, etc., just to mention a few whose games I really enjoy watching, they were all superb athletes who would, I suppose, be at or near the top if they were playing today.

    But comparing my experience of the old style game to my experience of today's game, I have to conclude that today's game is superior -- even though I like watching (and playing) the old style more.

    I think that Federer hits many more topspin backhands than slice backhands. But I agree that his slice backhand isn't as good as some of the old style players.

    I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this then. Rosewall is probably my favorite player of all time, along with McEnroe, Connors, and Laver, but I think Federer would beat them all.

    Maybe I'll change my mind after watching some Hoad videos, if I can ever find any. :)
     
    #63
  14. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Forza, Nobody prevents Federer & Co to enter as many events as Laver & Co.

    We should give credit to those who have won more than 100 tournaments.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2012
    #64
  15. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Forza, There is no weak ear crap. It's undisputed that Federer in several of his prime years had rather weak opposition. I never claimed that he had weak opposition within the last few years. He does have strong competition now. That's the reason why your darling has won only one major out of the last 11 (or 12 if we include Olympics).
     
    #65
  16. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Thanks TomT for your serious approach to analyse tennis history and presence.

    It's great that you admire Rosewall that much.

    We spoke about talented players not about who would win.

    But take off Federer's (and the other current players') modern equipment and the comparison with older players' strength would be interesting...
     
    #66
  17. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,094
    May I suggest you to watch the link to the 2011 roland-garros semi-final I posted previously. You can also see the 2010 WTF final against Nadal. Please, note that 2011 was Djokovic's best year so far, and 2010 Nadal's best year. You will see some nice mostly defensive outrights winner against the two better defensive current players.
     
    #67
  18. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Forza, Please explain me why a person who writes about the weak era in Federer's career is a hater? I just don't understand.
     
    #68
  19. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,094
    It is insulting to discard all very well argumented claim form Forzamilan and ARFED as *******s claim, in particular when you back up your point of view with:

    Can you remind me why Rosewall couldn' win Wimbledon again?
     
    #69
  20. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,483
    It's been 9 years since he won his first major. He's older now, he can't be expected to win everything left and right anymore. My point still stands, at age 31 Fed is still keeping on with the young guys and winning majors and getting back to #1 .

    It's undisputed he had weak competition? Why because their slam count isn't high? Kind of tough to do when one man takes the field by storm? Why say his competition is weak; why not say he was just that much better than everyone else and won most tournaments, hence leaving less for the others to stack on their resume? Jordan in the 90s left out players like Barkley and Stockton without championship, they were great players but he won trophies and didn't leave any for those guys. Same with Federer. Roddick had the potential to be a multiple slam champion. Probably 2-3 time Wimbledon champ for sure, especially pre 2006 when his ground strokes were ferocious. Hewitt also would have had a clearly stronger career, alas Fed took care of business. They're legit players, just one uber guy took home the trophies.

    In regard to Fed winning one of the last 11 slams...ok, but Fed also won one of the last 2 slams and is in good form, while Nadal is a bit on the downturn despite racking up slam titles (though still not as prolifically as Fed)

    Fed has been #1 player in the world during those different generations (especially now with the three youngsters in their primes while Fed is up in tennis years) Weak era argument is flat out dead as far as I am concerned.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2012
    #70
  21. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,195
    Not true.. Some eras produce more talent then others.. Thats the way its always been.

    Certain eras have produced more clay and grass talent then other eras.. Other eras have produced more hardcourt talent then others..

    NO ERAS are equal. Thus why its so difficult to compare eras.

    The 80s-early 90s produced the most depth with overall talented players, the 90s produced the best surface specialists, this era has produced the best baseline grinders.

    THe current era for instance has produced more talent at the top then say the early-mid 2000's.. Yet the early mid 2000's had more depth of talent from the 1-20 spot. While this era lacks it
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2012
    #71
  22. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,483
    I rest my case as far as the title count thing goes. Everything I needed to say regarding this topic of title count has been said in that paragraph. I'll say this though: game is different today, way more physical, hard court heavy (tougher on body, physical) you can't have players enter 20-25 events a year (injuries, faitgue a la Novak's form in 2nd half of 2011).
     
    #72
  23. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,483

    the generation of Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Nalbandian, etc. (let's include Agassi as well since he relevant up to mid 2000s) are legit players in your opinion right? I think they are solid, but were in bad luck to have Fed coincide with them. I don't get the weak era claims.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2012
    #73
  24. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,195
    Agassi was still solid but his prime also ended before Fed's began and by 2003 he was already getting OLD.(the proof is in his overall results from 2002-2005). Agassi's best level (outside of 93-95) came in 1999. A full 4 years before Fed hit his stride.

    Safin could have been on Nole's level but he was MIA through most of his career. He not commitment to the game of tennis. Roddick was solid.. But hes certainly not nearly as talented as Nole, MUrray and Nadal are.. Thats a no brainer of course.

    Nalbandian (See Safin)

    Fed took a lot from Roddick but Roddick also lost to a TON of other guys as well over a 10 year span. What about all those slams where Roddick lost and didn't meet Federe?

    THat time period (2003-2005) or so, had more talent in the top 10, but they also didn't have the type of talent at the top as there has been for the past 3 years or so with Murray, Djoker, and Nadal. These guys are simply more consistent and had more overall talent (excluding Safin or Nalbandian perhaps but they didn't do much with their talent as what was projected of them)
     
    #74
  25. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,483
    yeah those guys are pretty special, one of them is already up in the legends rating, the other's stock will only grow, and Murray for all I know will likely be a multiple majors champion.
     
    #75
  26. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,022
    Again, Laver's 200 titles have much less weight than today's standard. Fed's 76 titles is more than enough to be more impressive.


    Because you are wrong...tennis is play at a much higher level due to more athletes competing. If you watch tennis(i doubt that), every commentators/ex-players have said there's more depth/talent than ever before. Are you disagreeing with Laver, who actually played tennis?
     
    #76
  27. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Flash O'Groove, Thanks for the hint. I saw parts of that SF. I don't have the endurance to watch the whole match as I'm ill of cold with ear pain.

    I did see some fine Federer backhand shots but I also saw some bh mistakes. I fear Federer is too inconsistent with his bh. His forehand is much better.
     
    #77
  28. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,483
    Bobby serious question: do you regularly watch the current ATP tour? Especially big matches between the big 4?
     
    #78
  29. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Flash, I easily can explain you the fact why Rosewall did not win at Wimbledon. Please read my answers to Phoenix1983.

    I must smile that you compare Rosewall's fail at W. with Federer's recent losing streak. Rosewall#s failure is regarded by Phoenix and maybe others as a blame. Do you therefore concede Federer's losing streak is a blame?

    Rosewall did not enter Wimbledon for thirteen years while Roger entered every W and every major!

    The key point is: Most experts and fans deny Rosewall a place as a GOAT candidate not to speak about No.1 all time while the same experts push Federer at the GOAT status.

    The Rosewall critics should also be critical towards Federer and any other player.

    At 29 to 31 Roger should have won a bit more than only 1 major...
     
    #79
  30. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Forza, Probably we both are right: Federer was a stronger player than his opponents plus it was a -relative-weak era for some years.

    You can't blame Nadal for being on the downturn. He was injured.
     
    #80
  31. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    90's Clay, I only can agree. Good analysis.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2012
    #81
  32. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Only ignorants would refuse to say that Hewitt, Safin and Roddick were weaker players than Nadal, Djokovic and Murray.
     
    #82
  33. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I'm glad that I have at least one comrade in this case.
     
    #83
  34. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,483
    No doubt. Of those those three, I'm especially fond of Djokovic (primarily cause he's Eastern European so I do have some slight liking towards him for that).
     
    #84
  35. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    TMF,

    Being wrong does NOT mean a person is a Federer hater. Be serious!
     
    #85
  36. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Forza, I watch some of the current major matches but missed quite a few. I have seen enough to be able to judge current tennis and to compare it with former tennis.
     
    #86
  37. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Forza, Thanks. I also admire Djokovic. Perhaps he is the most talented player nowadays. Hope Federer fans will not kill me...
     
    #87
  38. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,483
    Just checking. I thought this season was awesome, 4 slam winners. Fed and Djoko fighting for the #1 till the end. Pumped up for next season big time (hoping Fed can continue his great run in form like he had in 2012, and Grigor Dimitrov to start getting some results).
     
    #88
  39. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,483
    I still think Fed is the most talented, but Djokovic has a modern game that is tailored made to succeed under the current conditions, and he has all around strengths in his game which make him tough to beat generally speaking. He's legit.
     
    #89
  40. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,699
    Location:
    U.S
    what a load of cr*p ..... federer is better than nadal outside of clay and slow HC is probably the only place where you could argue djoker is better than federer


    umm, no .........

    and santana, really ????????????????
     
    #90
  41. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,022
    The servers today are head and shoulder better than during Laver/Rosewall time or any era before them.
     
    #91
  42. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,699
    Location:
    U.S
    oh yeah ? or maybe its just you haven't watched much and are just hear the media and hater BS about federer's volleys/BH or the weak era and just keep on parroting it because it is convenient for you ..

    watch the RG 2011 SF where federer sliced open djoker's BH with his slice ... watch the AO 2010 final where he out-duelled murray on the BH side ..
    watch the YEC 2010/2011 matches vs rafa where he pummeled rafa's FH with his BH big time ...
    watch the hamburg 2007 final or rome 2006 final vs nadal where he volleyed brilliantly
     
    #92
  43. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,022
    If you don't like the word "hate", I'm sure that you don't like Federer, not at all.
     
    #93
  44. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,483
    he also was excellent at volleying in the 2012 Wimbledon final. Generally I think he has improved in that department with Annacone
     
    #94
  45. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    abmk, If Roger is the strongest, then why does not he win the majors (with one exception)? Hope this qestion is not crap.

    Santana was extremely talented maybe more than anyone else. I write this as a Rosewall admirer...
     
    #95
  46. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,022
    Yep, including the drop volley for a winner in the 2nd set to break Murray and win that 2nd set.
     
    #96
  47. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,483
    You mean why didn't he win more than 1 major this year? hehe gonna hit 2000 baby!
     
    #97
  48. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,672
    The 90s yes. The current era? Hell no. Even the 80s had far more great servers than the current era.
     
    #98
  49. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    The Federer pushing is even more convenient to you, I guess.
     
    #99
  50. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,022
    ^
    I dont get what Bobby is saying. Fed won the most slams(17). He is the only player to win at least 50 matches in each of the 4 slams. How could that not be strong.:confused:
     

Share This Page