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

[Tony48]

Djokovic and Nadal were BORN into a different era of tennis. I'm sure that if they were born in the 80s and 90s era, they would have been just fine.

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

How about some context? Duh he would be pretty good at it. He's pretty great from anywhere on the court. But TMF said he would have "a field day", which is absurd. Federer has done little to prove he would be a dominant serve and volleyer (granted he hasn't exactly been given the chance to, but still).

He has done enough to safely assume that. Sonicare is right. I just wanted to point out, that even at a VERY early age (before Federer was Federer), Federer has shown, that he has it in him (for those, who say, that it isn't natural),

The way I see it, he would have developed the same skillset, that he has now, plus more pronounced volleying skills (which he would have continued to develop).

It is a scary thought to think of such version of Federer.

[beast of mallorca]

[quote=Tennis_Hands;7022417]He has done enough to safely assume that. Sonicare is right. I just wanted to point out, that even at a VERY early age (before Federer was Federer), Federer has shown, that he has it in him (for those, who say, that it isn't natural),

The way I see it, he would have developed the same skillset, that he has now, plus more pronounced volleying skills (which he would have continued to develop).

It is a scary thought to think of such version of Federer.[/QUOTE]

Hahaha, you are such a fangirl. Stop over acting.

[Dragan]

BS. If time machine exists, any today's top athlete would have beat any top athlete from 20 years ago, in any sport, not only tennis. Sad but true.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by PSNELKE

Exactly. Don't forget William and Ernest Renshaw, Herbert Lawford, Lawrence and Reginald Doherty, Richard Sears, Bill Tilden and several dinosaurs.

With appropiate equipment and some adjusting time, those I mentioned had the patterns to bright in the current era.

While just Federer would win consistently in the 70´s and 80´s if modern players did play under 70´s conditions.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by Ico

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

No, they're not more qualified but being a great tennis player doesn't make one an absolute authority in all things regarding tennis, I've seen tennis greats make some downright idiotic statements at times, change their opinion almost weekly (think McEnroe) and suck terribly at predicting an outcome of the match (say Wilander and Gilbert).

Look at this example, Becker basically says Nadal would have sucked (would not have survived) in the so called "serve and volley" era yet McEnroe (an even greater player!) says Nadal has the best volley on tour? So which one of this qualified experts is right on the topic?

Furthemore I personally wouldn't call even the 80's the era "of serve and volley", arguably the best player of that era is Lendl and while his all-court abilities/talent is underrated he was definitely not a serve and volleyer, let alone the 90's where you had 2 slams in which baseline play had the edge over serve and volley (AO and FO), the 3d where both playing styles were equally viable (USO) with Wimbledon being the sole bastion of serve and volley tennis.

[Mick]

Becker said he didn't think Nadal or Djokovic "would have been so successful" but the OP changed that to "would have survived" and put Becker name to it

[monfed]

Yea, Ralph would've been another Coria/Kuerten in the 80s for sure.

[tennis_pro]

Originally Posted by Tony48

Djokovic and Nadal were BORN into a different era of tennis. I'm sure that if they were born in the 80s and 90s era, they would have been just fine.

Thank you very much - Djokovic and Nadal do what they have to do to win, same goes for Sampras, Becker et all in the 80's/90's.

/thread

[helloworld]

Tennis players are products from their own respective era. With that said, great champions will be great in any era, so Nadal and Djokovic playing in the 80s would have a totally different game from what they are playing now.

[TheNatural]

Fed was very inconsistent pre poly. They all wouldn't be as successful if they all had to play in the 90's without poly.

[namelessone]

Originally Posted by helloworld

Tennis players are products from their own respective era. With that said, great champions will be great in any era, so Nadal and Djokovic playing in the 80s would have a totally different game from what they are playing now.

This is the one thing people either don't get or don't want to get.

Players are products of their era. Even Federer, who was playing S&V in his first major WB outings, has cut it out for the most part and stuck to baseline rallies. Edberg, THE S&V er, said that if he played in today's era he would mostly stay back.

Both Nadal and Djokovic said that they really wanted to win WB. In this era, they had it easier with the bigger ball bouce so that they didn't have to make major changes in their baseline game but if they were born earlier on they would've probably adopted a different style to try and win on most surfaces(or at least for the big titles).

Obviously, no matter what era you're in, you're gonna lean one way or another but I don't know why people automatically assume that today's defensive players would've automatically been so in the past as well. Nadal was very offensive in his early teens(with a Gonzalez like forehand at times), Djokovic was much more aggressive circa 2008, Murray has his moments of offensive brilliance. It's just that 7-8 years ago, most tourneys started following WB's example and slowed down their courts so most players starting taking note and dialed down their offense.

I mean, even Federer is less agressive than he used to be in his peak and it's no coincidence that all top 5 guys are tremendous defenders(yes, even Federer).

What Becker said is very relative. I could just as easily say that the big S&V'er Becker would be eaten alive in today's tennis but that wouldn't be fair nor true.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by TheNatural

Fed was very inconsistent pre poly. They all wouldn't be as successful if they all had to play in the 90's without poly.

Agreed here. Fed was extremely inconsistent during the pre-poly era and very error prone. While he also would probably have the best shot at success in the 90s out of the top 4 guys, he also most likely wouldn't have the same amount of success as he had from 00s'-on either.

He would have to go for more and play more high risk tennis, thus meaning more errors.. He wouldn't just get to live at the baseline and get to get in his groove.. He wasn't the best server around, and his net game isn't the best either.

The French also played as slow as Monte Carlo just about in the 90s lets not forget. Which takes some of Fed's game away

[TMF]

Originally Posted by tennis_pro

Thank you very much - Djokovic and Nadal do what they have to do to win, same goes for Sampras, Becker et all in the 80's/90's.

/thread

If Nadal/Nole and Sampras/Becker were to swap era, I think Nadal/Nole would fare better chance. There were great baseliners during the serve/volley era. Agassi, Courier and especially Lendl were incredibly successful. So I think Nadal/Nole being a baseliner would still be formidable. However, Sampras/Becker would suffer if they stick to be an attacking player in this era, because serve and volley today wouldn't get you any further than just a journeyman. Basically, it's not a must for Nadal/Nole to convert into an attacking player in the 80s or 90s, but for an attacking player like Sampras/Becker they must fine tuned their game to be a great baseliner in order to be a grand slam champion.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by TheNatural

Fed was very inconsistent pre poly. They all wouldn't be as successful if they all had to play in the 90's without poly.

Right, that had nothing to do with being a headcase when he was younger, it was only the lack of poly crosses.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by helloworld

Tennis players are products from their own respective era. With that said, great champions will be great in any era, so Nadal and Djokovic playing in the 80s would have a totally different game from what they are playing now.

Not necessary. There would be more chances for them to attack thus improve their net game, but they still can be a baseliner. Agassi strictly sticks behind the baseline and he had a great career, winning on fast court like Wimbledon, USO and Master Cup. And Agassi didn't have full commitment in the 90s. Since Nadal/Nole > Agassi, they would do just fine, and drastically reduce the level of domination from serve/volley players.

[Murrayfan31]

Yeah putting Nadal and Djokovic together in the same breath is insulting enough in itself.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

Right, that had nothing to do with being a headcase when he was younger, it was only the lack of poly crosses.

And teenage, head case Federer was having problem against the baseliners(Nalbandian, Hewitt, Agassi), but was able to beat the serve/volley(Krajicek, Sampras, Ivanisevic).

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by TMF

Not necessary. There would be more chances for them to attack thus improve their net game, but they still can be a baseliner. Agassi strictly sticks behind the baseline and he had a great career, winning on fast court like Wimbledon, USO and Master Cup. And Agassi didn't have full commitment in the 90s. Since Nadal/Nole > Agassi, they would do just fine, and drastically reduce the level of domination from serve/volley players.

Agassi had an uncanny ability to get clean swipes at the ball and take the ball earlier which required less running around like Nole and Nadal. Agassi was probably the cleanest hitter in history and possibly the best return of serve ever.

In that respect Andre was much more of an attacker then other two which could help him see success on all surfaces. I doubt either would see the same success Andre did because of that.

Nadal would probably rack up French Open titles (though to the same degree? Who knows.. Hes more of a product of the poly era so he couldn't generate the same rpms on the spin without the poly).. Nole would win some AO titles but doubtful he would ever a wimbledon or USO under the old conditions).


They both could win some slams on their best surfaces, but to have the same success in the 90s as they do now? No way. They are slow court players.. Fast surfaces a different animal. Especially for those who require the conditions so they can thrive on their defensive abilities

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Murrayfan31

Yeah putting Nadal and Djokovic together in the same breath is insulting enough in itself.

How so? They both are great players. Putting them in the 90s/80s, Nadal most success will be clay, Nole will be on hard court. On a slick grass, I'm not so sure who would do better.