Dream match-up.

[Chillaxer]

Borg vs Nadal at the French. Hewitt vs Nadal at Wimbledon and Hard Court.

[The-Champ]

What about doubles team?

These two would a pretty good team:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRAX66Ztmv8#t=53s

[Paul Murphy]

Got to throw in Fed v Sampras at both USO and Wimbledon.
I think Fed v Becker at Wimbledon would be fascinating.

[Paul Murphy]

And, last but not least: Fed v Laver - on any surface except clay.

[pc1]

Bobby Riggs versus Serena Williams.

[Paul Murphy]

Originally Posted by pc1

Bobby Riggs versus Serena Williams.

It'd be noisy that's for sure.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Paul Murphy

It'd be noisy that's for sure.

Obviously Riggs would destroy Serena if both were in their primes but how would 50 year old Bobby Riggs do against peak Serena? That's five years younger than when he lost to Billie Jean but beat Margaret Court.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by pc1

Nice pick with Becker and Nastase too. I think Nastase's the more talented player and clearly the better touch player versus the power of Becker. If they played on all surfaces I would tend to favor Nastase winning the majority.

I'd take Becker the majority of the time on grass, at the very least. Nastase won at Forest Hills but lost both of his Wimbledon finals, compared to Becker's 3 Wimby titles and 7 finals.

On clay I'd have to say Nastase; his record on clay is clearly superior.

Hard court might be tougher, but Becker has two AO titles and a USO so I'd take him.

Indoors might be the most fascinating of all. Nastase could push Becker hard. He won 3 Masters titles indoors, including a crushing victory over Borg in '75; and he beat Laver in five sets at Wembley; among other victories.

But carpet was probably Becker's best surface; I think his peak level was arguably even higher than Sampras'. Nastase could push him hard but still I'd go with Becker here.

Thing about Nastase is that he wasn't that consistent. When he was at his best he could take down anyone, including Becker. But most players were more consistent than him, including Becker starting around '88.

Even on clay, which I think Nastase would win, Becker has a consistent record. He never got one claycourt title but he made plenty of finals, and in a series I could see him taking some matches whenever Nastase was fooling around in one way or another.

Entertaining matchup for sure. Great personalities, exciting styles of play.

[Dedans Penthouse]

Originally Posted by Paul Murphy

If you could pluck two players from the past and pit them against each other at their peak who would it be?
And on what surface?

For me:

Lendl v McEnroe at the USO.
Lendl v Agassi at the USO.

for me:

R. Raskind (US Open '60) vs. R. Richards (US Open '77) at the US Open.

[urban]

Men's or women's singles?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

I will agree, Newk had a good and sòlid around vale which IMOs undervalued.Great attacking FH and deep sliced BH.That is the diferencia with Roche

As strong as Newcombe was-Roche was even stronger before his injury captured him. Roche is vastly underrated.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

As strong as Newcombe was-Roche was even stronger before his injury captured him. Roche is vastly underrated.

Well, I liked Roche a lot and he had a very complete game rounded up by a devastating volley.But, overall, I still pick Newcombe.Newcombe had a better serve, almost as good volley, equal Bh and, even if Roche had an excellent FH, Newk´s was more percutant.Roche, at his best, was able to beat any past or present great, but I think Newcombe was a bit steadier.

Having said that, the mastership Roche had at the net was something to marvel at.Last time I saw him play, he was around his late 30´s and still a far better volleyer than most of the pro players ( and it was a pro tour loaded with excellent net men)

[pc1]

Originally Posted by krosero

I'd take Becker the majority of the time on grass, at the very least. Nastase won at Forest Hills but lost both of his Wimbledon finals, compared to Becker's 3 Wimby titles and 7 finals.

On clay I'd have to say Nastase; his record on clay is clearly superior.

Hard court might be tougher, but Becker has two AO titles and a USO so I'd take him.

Indoors might be the most fascinating of all. Nastase could push Becker hard. He won 3 Masters titles indoors, including a crushing victory over Borg in '75; and he beat Laver in five sets at Wembley; among other victories.

But carpet was probably Becker's best surface; I think his peak level was arguably even higher than Sampras'. Nastase could push him hard but still I'd go with Becker here.

Thing about Nastase is that he wasn't that consistent. When he was at his best he could take down anyone, including Becker. But most players were more consistent than him, including Becker starting around '88.

Even on clay, which I think Nastase would win, Becker has a consistent record. He never got one claycourt title but he made plenty of finals, and in a series I could see him taking some matches whenever Nastase was fooling around in one way or another.

Entertaining matchup for sure. Great personalities, exciting styles of play.

No matter what it would be fun as you wrote. It would tough matches and I love the contrast in styles.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

Well, I liked Roche a lot and he had a very complete game rounded up by a devastating volley.But, overall, I still pick Newcombe.Newcombe had a better serve, almost as good volley, equal Bh and, even if Roche had an excellent FH, Newk´s was more percutant.Roche, at his best, was able to beat any past or present great, but I think Newcombe was a bit steadier.

Having said that, the mastership Roche had at the net was something to marvel at.Last time I saw him play, he was around his late 30´s and still a far better volleyer than most of the pro players ( and it was a pro tour loaded with excellent net men)

Newcombe had probably the superior lifetime record but Roche was so talented that many observers thought he was the heir apparent to Laver. It made sense.

I think Roche was a bit better at his peak than Newcombe but it's not exactly a slam dunk considering how great Newcombe was. I thought his backhand was better and he had a little better volley, especially that awesome backhand volley which could be the greatest ever.

Like you wrote Kiki, Newcombe had a sensational serve and a super forehand, one of the best I've seen. He had a solid backhand, not great but very solid and his volley was excellent. Newcombe would be a danger to any player that ever lived on any surface when he was at his peak. He was a big match player and on a fast grass surface at times would seen unbeatable.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

Well, I liked Roche a lot and he had a very complete game rounded up by a devastating volley.But, overall, I still pick Newcombe.Newcombe had a better serve, almost as good volley, equal Bh and, even if Roche had an excellent FH, Newk´s was more percutant.Roche, at his best, was able to beat any past or present great, but I think Newcombe was a bit steadier.

Having said that, the mastership Roche had at the net was something to marvel at.Last time I saw him play, he was around his late 30´s and still a far better volleyer than most of the pro players ( and it was a pro tour loaded with excellent net men)

I think that Roche had a better backhand.

I guess that Roche who was so strong in 1969 when he beat Laver 5 times would have become the world's No. 1 after Laver's and Rosewall's decline.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by krosero

I'd take Becker the majority of the time on grass, at the very least. Nastase won at Forest Hills but lost both of his Wimbledon finals, compared to Becker's 3 Wimby titles and 7 finals.

On clay I'd have to say Nastase; his record on clay is clearly superior.

Hard court might be tougher, but Becker has two AO titles and a USO so I'd take him.

Indoors might be the most fascinating of all. Nastase could push Becker hard. He won 3 Masters titles indoors, including a crushing victory over Borg in '75; and he beat Laver in five sets at Wembley; among other victories.

But carpet was probably Becker's best surface; I think his peak level was arguably even higher than Sampras'. Nastase could push him hard but still I'd go with Becker here.

Thing about Nastase is that he wasn't that consistent. When he was at his best he could take down anyone, including Becker. But most players were more consistent than him, including Becker starting around '88.

Even on clay, which I think Nastase would win, Becker has a consistent record. He never got one claycourt title but he made plenty of finals, and in a series I could see him taking some matches whenever Nastase was fooling around in one way or another.

Entertaining matchup for sure. Great personalities, exciting styles of play.

Nastase won 4 Masters titles.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

No matter what it would be fun as you wrote. It would tough matches and I love the contrast in styles.

The cocky ( although he had sense of humour) german vs the latin antics of the Romenian.Great.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Newcombe had probably the superior lifetime record but Roche was so talented that many observers thought he was the heir apparent to Laver. It made sense.

I think Roche was a bit better at his peak than Newcombe but it's not exactly a slam dunk considering how great Newcombe was. I thought his backhand was better and he had a little better volley, especially that awesome backhand volley which could be the greatest ever.

Like you wrote Kiki, Newcombe had a sensational serve and a super forehand, one of the best I've seen. He had a solid baseline, not great but very solid and his volley was excellent. Newcombe would be a danger to any player that ever lived on any surface when he was at his peak. He was a big match player and on a fast grass surface at times would seen unbeatable.

We have talked so much ( deservedly) about the great Ashe vs Laver smeis at 1969 W and FH...but it also happened that , in both events, the other semi were 2 extremely close matches between the double teammates Newcombe and Roche...I´d pay a lot to see those matches, too.

Look at this, no matter who was better, teaming up both were a machine gun that let opponents without air.Their powers combined so so well.I would have loved so much peak Newcombe/Roche vs Hoad/Rosewall around 1958 or 1959...the best ever doubles match?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

The cocky ( although he had sense of humour) german vs the latin antics of the Romenian.Great.

Nastase against a lot of guys would be great if Nastase was in full flow.

Would love to see Nastase against Djokovic, Nadal and Federer.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by pc1

Newcombe had probably the superior lifetime record but Roche was so talented that many observers thought he was the heir apparent to Laver. It made sense.

I think Roche was a bit better at his peak than Newcombe but it's not exactly a slam dunk considering how great Newcombe was. I thought his backhand was better and he had a little better volley, especially that awesome backhand volley which could be the greatest ever.

Like you wrote Kiki, Newcombe had a sensational serve and a super forehand, one of the best I've seen. He had a solid baseline, not great but very solid and his volley was excellent. Newcombe would be a danger to any player that ever lived on any surface when he was at his peak. He was a big match player and on a fast grass surface at times would seen unbeatable.

In my opinion Newcombe is a bit overrated. Remember that Newk was never ever an undisputed No.1. In fact he ranked at most tied No.1 in 1970, 1971 and 1973.

Grandpa Rosewall was 4:3 against Newcombe in big events and 14:10 overall...