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

[reversef]

Originally Posted by 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.

Exactly. In the beginning of the nineties, many experts were already worried because of the lack of new serve and volley players. It was already considered a species at risk of extinction.

[Tennis_Hands]

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.

You are correct.

Nadal and Djokovic would have been probably a lot less significant in fast conditions. The challengers would have been other, but Federer would have stayed dominant, just like his real career turned out to be.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

You are correct.

Nadal and Djokovic would have been probably a lot less significant in fast conditions. The challengers would have been other, but Federer would have stayed dominant, just like his real career turned out to be.

Oh, of course

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by 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.

Because he cannot addapt to the presented faster surfaces as it is, never mind faster than that.

A load of claycourt tourneys wouldn't mean more success outside of clay, would it?

And, why talking about clay at all, when the conversation is about the faster conditions of the 80ies and the 90ies?

Going deliberately off-topic with your inane tardish babble, are you?

[RF20Lennon]

Becker is right but lucky for nadal and nole that there is no carpet and that most all the HC's have slowed down. Take a fast court like cincy and its no wonder neither of the two have won it. Although Djokovic has gotten to the final 4 times he hasnt won a set.

[dimeaxe]

Becker would be destroyed by Novak in any conditions, he's not really the smartest man in the world, better for him to shut up.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

Because he cannot addapt to the presented faster surfaces as it is, never mind faster than that.

Nadal has won the career Grand Slam. Try again.

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

A load of claycourt tourneys wouldn't mean more success outside of clay, would it?

It would mean more ranking points, and thus Nadal would "survive" in the 1990s.

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

And, why talking about clay at all, when the conversation is about the faster conditions of the 80ies and the 90ies?

Because believe it or not, clay-court tennis did exist in the 1980s and 1990s and not just serve and volley fests.

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

Going deliberately off-topic with your inane tardish babble, are you?

Not at all.

[dimeaxe]

Originally Posted by RF20Lennon

Becker is right but lucky for nadal and nole that there is no carpet and that most all the HC's have slowed down. Take a fast court like cincy and its no wonder neither of the two have won it. Although Djokovic has gotten to the final 4 times he hasnt won a set.

Dubai is faster than Cincy, and look what happened to Roger last years.It's just myth that he plays great in faster conditions.

[RF20Lennon]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Nadal has won the career Grand Slam. Try again.



It would mean more ranking points, and thus Nadal would "survive" in the 1990s.



Because believe it or not, clay-court tennis did exist in the 1980s and 1990s and not just serve and volley fests.



Not at all.

I agree with what you said Mustard but Nadal hasnt been able to adapt to quick courts. The USO and AO are not fast courts

[RF20Lennon]

Originally Posted by dimeaxe

Dubai is faster than Cincy, and look what happened to Roger last years.It's just myth that he plays great in faster conditions.

UH....he won dubai this year and also in Cincy the ball travels much faster due to the weather conditions

[Arsnlrob]

Originally Posted by dimeaxe

Becker would be destroyed by Novak in any conditions, he's not really the smartest man in the world, better for him to shut up.

Agreed. I'd love to see Becker (in his little white short-shorts) get continually passed down the line by No1e, who is considered by most experts as the best returner in the game today. Becker would not have a chance no matter what the surface was.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by RF20Lennon

I agree with what you said Mustard but Nadal hasnt been able to adapt to quick courts. The USO and AO are not fast courts

The US Open is a fast hardcourt. Not Dubai or Cincinnati fast, but it is a fast hardcourt. No hardcourt was ever near the speed of carpet courts, though, nor did they have the quickness and lowish bounces of the old Wimbledon grass. Yet some people seem to think that hardcourts should be lightning fast. Odd.

[dimeaxe]

Roger is hypocrite.He suggested faster courts, but why he suggested carpet surface to be removed from tour seven or eight years ago???He was one of the players who said it's not safe for players to play on that.After 17 gs and many other records, he suggests fast stuff, very smart Roger, very smart...

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Nadal has won the career Grand Slam. Try again..

In conditions and speeds, that favour exactly his style and that is the whole point in what Becker said.

Try again.

Originally Posted by Mustard

It would mean more ranking points, and thus Nadal would have had a good career in the 1990s.

No, because if he chooses to play clay tourneys elsewhere he should give up points elsewhere. That and the points and titles from the Majors, he (and Djokovic) wouldn't have won, would hardly make for more successful career. Again, that is the whole point in what Becker said.

Are you sure, that you understand English?

Originally Posted by Mustard

Because believe it or not, clay-court tennis did exist in the 1980s and 1990s and not just serve and volley fests.

And that is completely irrelevant in this discussion.

The only reason, that I can think of, for doing that, is to derail the thread from the main topic.

Originally Posted by Mustard

Not at all.

You keep doing that. I think that you are your best enemy, when you lead conversations like that.

Originally Posted by Mustard

The US Open is a fast hardcourt. Not Dubai or Cincinnati fast, but it is a fast hardcourt. No hardcourt was ever near the speed of carpet courts, though, nor did they have the quickness and lowish bounces of the old Wimbledon grass. Yet some people seem to think that hardcourts should be lightning fast. Odd.

US Open was much faster than it has been for the past several years. And who said, that the speed of the HC should be as fast as carpet? You are making absurd assumptions, just to refute them and thus "prove" your point. Pathetic.

US Open was easily as fast as Cincinnati years back. Tell us how successful Nadal is in Cincinnati?

Why is odd for US Open to be fast? Odd

[RF20Lennon]

Originally Posted by Mustard

The US Open is a fast court. Not Dubai or Cincinnati fast, but it is a fast hardcourt. No hardcourt was ever near the speed of carpet courts, though, nor did they have the quickness and lowish bounces of the old Wimbledon grass.

exactly what i meant. Fed played on carpet early on in his career I think.

[dimeaxe]

Originally Posted by RF20Lennon

UH....he won dubai this year and also in Cincy the ball travels much faster due to the weather conditions

For Novak, it's not fast surface/conditions that bothers him in Cinci.It's hot weather.I think after four matches, playing every day, he's dead in finals even though he cope with it much better these days.

[firepanda]

Originally Posted by Ico

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

Oh, aren't we sarcastic today?

Well I'm going to do just that. Nadal and Djokovic aren't good on fast surfaces, but they aren't dismal either.

Nadal would have destroyed the clay scene as he does now. No reason to think anything has changed. He wouldn't win Wimbledon, because he couldn't get past the likes of Ivanisevic. However, there's no reason to think he'd bomb out completely. He's an acceptable volleyer and has fantastic instincts. He also happens to be the passer. Ever. He could potentially become one of the best volleyers if he adapted his style to the game. Likewise, he can hold his own on the hard courts. He never wins Cincy and WTF, but he doesn't exactly lose first round, does he? No reason that would change.

Djokovic has just won WTF. He's still one of the best hard-courters in the game, no matter what era. He would fare worse than Nadal, who has the game to beat the S/V types, but there is no denying his greatness.

[Steve0904]

Well, this isn't exactly groundbreaking news, but I will say in favour of Nadal and Djokovic, that they are simply products of the courts today IMO. It seems strange to say, but I think they'd be completely different players had they played in the 80's or 90's. If they knew they needed to succeed on fast courts, they'd play completely differently than what they do now on comparitively slow ones. Their styles succeed in todays game which is all that really matters. Besides that, Nadal would still have 7 RG titles for sure, and he'd probably still have his Aussie title, and Djokovic would probably still have his 3 Aussie titles.

As for Federer, yes there are players who have better serves, and/or vollies, but Federer's played a fair bit of S&V, and he's amazing when it comes to returning big serves especially in his prime, so he'd survive, and he'd probably still lead in GS count IMHO.

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by RF20Lennon

exactly what i meant. Fed played on carpet early on in his career I think.

Fed won Wimbledon for Juniors in Singles and Doubles on the lightning fast grass. He beat Sampras on the same grass. No need to speculate about his potential on ultra fast surfaces.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

In conditions and speeds, that favour exactly his style and that is the whole point in what Becker said.

Try again.

The thread title says that Nadal and Djokovic wouldn't have survived in the 1980s and 1990s. I think it's clear that Nadal could have survived in these decades.

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

No, because if he chooses to play clay tourneys elsewhere he should give up points elsewhere. That and the points and titles from the Majors, he (and Djokovic) wouldn't have won, would hardly make for more successful career. Again, that is the whole point in what Becker said.

The thread title says "wouldn't survive", not "wouldn't be as successful".

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

And that is completely irrelevant in this discussion.

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

There were clay-court tournaments galore in these decades, where serve and volley was a lot more scarce.

Conclusion: Relevant to this discussion.