Nadal and Djokovic would not have survived the 80's and 90's - Becker

[tennisaddict]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/s...w/17258860.cms

Legendary tennis player Boris Becker rated Roger Federer very highly and said due to his sound technique the Swiss probably could have been the only player to have competed successfully in the "serve and volley" era.

"The reason why Federer is still successful at the age of 31 is because he has got a good technique. He can play from the baseline and when he has to, he can also come to the net more often than other players," Becker said during an event.

"I don't think (Rafael) Nadal or (Novak) Djokovic would have been so successful in the era of serve and volley but Federer could have played," the German added.

[Ico]

Brace yourself. Couch warriors here at TT are way more qualified about this subject than silly Boris Becker. Vamos.

[Sumo]

He's probably right, just like he would have trouble being successful in today's game.

[mental midget]

it's hard to say. they developed games suited to the conditions. i've seen nadal exhibit great touch at times, but it's not the cornerstone of his game, obviously. of the three federer's game is the best showcase for 'talent' in the broader sense, and i think it's a given that he'd be at or near the top in pretty much any era.

i would put edberg very close to roger in the talent category. i've read articles where he said that he simply loved to attack, attack, attack and cultivated his game accordingly (hence the conti forehand, simply a means to get to the net, really). but if you watched his career it was obvious that had he cultivated a stronger all-court game, he had the athletic tools to do pretty much anything on a tennis court.

[TMF]

It's not a surprise because anyone can see Roger can adapt to any playing condition. As successful as he is on slow courts in the past years, he would even be better with a faster courts. So given Federer playing in an era of serve and volley, he would have a field day.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by TMF

It's not a surprise because anyone can see Roger can adapt to any playing condition. As successful as he is on slow courts in the past years, he would even be better with a faster courts. So given Federer playing in an era of serve and volley, he would have a field day.

You presume everyone would be playing serve and volley in a field with players like today, for instance thinking players with the exact skill sets of Nadal and Djokovic, the same ones who Becker himself claims would be irrelevant in that era, would be his main rivals in even a serve and volley based era, which is a silly assumption. In an era of serve and volleyers Federer would be in alot more trouble relative to his current dominance in the baseline only era, as while they dont exist today in the past there were MANY players with both better serves and especialy better volleys than Federer. In the 90s alone Sampras, Becker, Stich, Krajicek (yes 1 slam wonder Krajicek of all people), were superior to Federer in both serving and volleying ability. Edberg and Rafter were much superior in volleying. Philipoussis and Ivanisevic superior in serving.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

You presume everyone would be playing serve and volley in a field with players like today, for instance thinking players with the exact skill sets of Nadal and Djokovic, the same ones who Becker himself claims would be irrelevant in that era, would be his main rivals in even a serve and volley based era, which is a silly assumption. In an era of serve and volleyers Federer would be in alot more trouble relative to his current dominance in the baseline only era, as while they dont exist today in the past there were MANY players with both better serves and especialy better volleys than Federer. In the 90s alone Sampras, Becker, Stich, Krajicek (yes 1 slam wonder Krajicek of all people), were superior to Federer in both serving and volleying ability. Edberg and Rafter were much superior in volleying. Philipoussis and Ivanisevic superior in serving.

If Agassi could win 8 Slams having turned pro in the late 80s, Federer could easily win atleast 12 Slams, even he were playing with the same style as he is now. But he wouldn't, he'd be a different player if he were from that generation and he'd have more success than that. Besides, seeing how well he's playing at 31, he'd be racking up Slams in 2000, 2001 and 2002.

[Mustard]

We can never know. But the 1990s clay scene had very little serve and volley. The clay scene at that time was actually an early sign of the sort of gruelling matches we see today, full of engrossing rallies. One guy definitely harmed by the more modern game compared to 1990s conditions is Lleyton Hewitt. He loved playing against serve and volleyers who pressured him at the net.

Nadal in the 1990s would have played a lot more on clay and a lot less on hardcourts.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

You presume everyone would be playing serve and volley in a field with players like today, for instance thinking players with the exact skill sets of Nadal and Djokovic, the same ones who Becker himself claims would be irrelevant in that era, would be his main rivals in even a serve and volley based era, which is a silly assumption. In an era of serve and volleyers Federer would be in alot more trouble relative to his current dominance in the baseline only era, as while they dont exist today in the past there were MANY players with both better serves and especialy better volleys than Federer. In the 90s alone Sampras, Becker, Stich, Krajicek (yes 1 slam wonder Krajicek of all people), were superior to Federer in both serving and volleying ability. Edberg and Rafter were much superior in volleying. Philipoussis and Ivanisevic superior in serving.

Agreed.

But Federer is more of a 1980´s player, where I think he would have also shone quite a lot ( although would not have dominated nearly as much, of course)

Tennis changed a lot.Sampras or Becker would have very hard times in today´s conditions, the same that Nadal and Djokovic or Murray under the 90´s conditions.

[Mustard]

Sampras and Becker stayed back a lot on hardcourt and clay for much of their careers anyway, and carpet courts don't exist on tour anymore.

[kalyan4fedever]

So the only player who can be successful in both the eras = Sexie Rogie , whats surprising about that , its a known fact.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by kalyan4fedever

So the only player who can be successful in both the eras = Sexie Rogie , whats surprising about that , its a known fact.

Laver,Budge,Gonzales,Hoad,Borg,Connors,Lendl are others too

[Clarky21]

Originally Posted by kalyan4fedever

So the only player who can be successful in both the eras = Sexie Rogie , whats surprising about that , its a known fact.

It is? I guess you have a time machine that transported Fed and Nadal back to that era to know for a fact that Fed could hack it while Nadal could not. Nice DeLorean,Doc Brown.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by kiki

Laver,Budge,Gonzales,Hoad,Borg,Connors,Lendl are others too

5'8 Laver wouldn't stand a chance today.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by kalyan4fedever

So the only player who can be successful in both the eras = Sexie Rogie , whats surprising about that , its a known fact.

A known fact? Interesting. Did you take Federer back to the past by using a TARDIS or a DeLorean?

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

5'8 Laver wouldn't stand a chance today.

He´d get as much bored with current tennis as seasoned expert fans do

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by kiki

He´d get as much bored with current tennis as seasoned expert fans do

Yeah, getting knocked out in the 1st round of every tournament you enter is bound to get boring after a while

[TMF]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

You presume everyone would be playing serve and volley in a field with players like today, for instance thinking players with the exact skill sets of Nadal and Djokovic, the same ones who Becker himself claims would be irrelevant in that era, would be his main rivals in even a serve and volley based era, which is a silly assumption. In an era of serve and volleyers Federer would be in alot more trouble relative to his current dominance in the baseline only era, as while they dont exist today in the past there were MANY players with both better serves and especialy better volleys than Federer. In the 90s alone Sampras, Becker, Stich, Krajicek (yes 1 slam wonder Krajicek of all people), were superior to Federer in both serving and volleying ability. Edberg and Rafter were much superior in volleying. Philipoussis and Ivanisevic superior in serving.

But instead of being a dominant baseliner today, Federer would be a dominant s/v player, as he would adapt to the different environment. Of course converting to a dominant s/v, he would give up some his baseline prowess, there's a give and take.

In today's era, a great baseliner would be a slam winners. Being a s/v player is dead meat. But in the 90s, great s/v players AND great baseliners both can win multiple slams. So with more option to play with, this gives Roger better chance because he's a versatile player. He can win as a baseliner or a s/v player, or a combination of both. Players in the 90s doesn't have his versatility. Unlike today, it's impossible to win slam playing s/v, regardless of his versatility. I think variety(mixture of s/v and baseline game) works to his advantage.

[Agassifan]

Fed's game is definitely versatile enough to thrive in the era of serve and volleyers. Heck, he was one.

[Mustard]

Why assume that Nadal couldn't adapt? He isn't exactly a bad volleyer. And in the 1990s, Nadal would have been free to play a load of clay-court tournaments anyway.