At their best, who would win?

[abmk]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

TomT, I doubt that Federer is fitter than Hoad was. There are reports that Hoad was the fittest.

yeah , ok >> go tell that to Dan Lobb, half of his posts say hoad had a leg injury, hand injury, head injury, problem with breathing ..... blah blah blah ...... blah blah blah ....... blah blah blah ...

[Steve0904]

Originally Posted by Graphiteking

The question speaks for itself. Men's and Women's. At the height of their careers out of all the players, who would win? One match, on hardcourt. Men's winner? Women's winner?

Regarding just the question which says HC only. Federer and Serena are my picks.

But if I was to go surface by surface (men only), I would say something like this:

Clay: Nadal
Fast grass: Sampras
Slow grass: Federer
Slow HC: i.e (since they turned the AO blue, I would say that Miami and Canada have always been pretty slow as well) Djokovic
Medium to fast HC: Federer
Indoor HC: McEnroe
Carpet: McEnroe

Please keep in mind that I'm trying not to pick 2 or 3 players for each surface because I hate that, and I think it totally takes away from the purpose of the question.

[Graphiteking]

Originally Posted by abmk

except that :

a) he does that in half of his posts
b) what he said is pure cr*p ....... comparing an at his best hoad with average federer

a 7/10 may be fair enough for federer's volleys on an average, I'd put it at 7.5 ..... I'd put his BH and return on an average much higher than 7/10, closer to 8.5 ...

most importantly, his BH can be suspect against high balls , may be inconsistent at times, his return can be a bit passive at times, his volleys sloppy at times, especially FH volleys ...... but this is an average playing federer ....

at his very best, his volleys, BH and return, all are excellent and none of them a weakness ......

I have to agree. We are talking at their best. You cannot give Fed a 7 on any aspect of his game.

[Feather]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

NadalAgassi, You are very brave in rating some of Federer's strokes as non-super. I agree.

Never knew that speaking nonsense is tantamount to being brave!

Despite having such non super qualities Federer created records that everyone looks with envy and also prompted greats like Laver to say that he is the closest to the greatest !

Federer should be super human

[Feather]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Peak for peak considering everyone and every surface.

Slow hardcourts- Agassi or Djokovic (Rebound Ace if it was Andre. He was the best ever on that surface IMO.. Plenty of material to look at 1995 or 2000 AO)
Fast Grass-Sampras or Pancho
Slow Grass-Nadal or Federer (Though I'm sure Laver would have his chances)
Clay-2008 Nadal or 1995 Muster (The two highest levels Ive ever seen on clay)
Fast Hardcourts-Sampras or Federer or Connors (I can't really choose between these three here.)
Indoors-Sampras, Federer or Becker (Too close to call respecting all three's peaks)

Just couldn't help this. On any type of grass Sampras would never be behind Nadal.. This coming from a Pete Sampras fan

[pc1]

Originally Posted by abmk

yeah , ok >> go tell that to Dan Lobb, half of his posts say hoad had a leg injury, hand injury, head injury, problem with breathing ..... blah blah blah ...... blah blah blah ....... blah blah blah ...

But despite the excuses that some make for Hoad the man was known for great stamina. But he was also known for a chronic back injury that apparently did not allow him to fulfill his potential. Federer's stamina to me is underrated. He rarely seems tired to me and he is generally injury free. For fitness it's clearly Federer because he is almost never injured. For stamina, I'm not sure because many think Hoad's stamina was the best ever, along with Roy Emerson. It could be the hero worship of Hoad by his compatriots but maybe it is true. Even Jack Kramer thought Hoad's stamina was incredible.

[ARFED]

Federer`s backhand seems to be much underrated here. Being at his very best, his backhand only breaks down against Nadal on clay, even then he handles his heavy top spin almost better than anyone excluding Djokovic and Murray. The reason his backhand seems rather weak sometimes is because his court positioning, he plays standing on the baseline, he doesn`t camp 5 or 6 feet behind like Gasquet, Almagro or Wawrinka just to name other one handers commonly regarded as better than Fed`s. If you ever played tennis you would know that the hardest groudstroke to play by far is the backhand played off a heavy ball on the rise. It is even much more difficult to do it with a one hander. If Fed backed up just a little to give it more time to set up his backhand, his UE count would drop a lot and the perception regarding his backhand would be te one of a solid as a rock stroke. When Fed gets a surface with a low bounce like the WTF, just watch how he dismantles Nadal`s forehand like it is nothing. I always thought that the match up issue between the both of them is sometimes misguided. When you have such different styles like they have, who is favoured depends heavily on the conditions the match is played on, and who has the best skill set for those given conditions. And with today slow high bouncing surfaces we all know how that goes. You set regularly a match of this two on a faster low bouncing surface and all of a suddden Fed becomes a nightmare match up for Nadal because he wouldn`t have to resign an inch of court position to handle Rafa`s forehand (wich is the reason why Rafa`s forehand is so deadly).

[TMF]

People rate Fed's bh only against Nadal, but they should compare to the rest of the players on the tour. Should we rate Pete's serve on slow surface or clay and ignore the fast surfaces? No, they should see the whole picture. Also, Fed is playing in a current condition that is the toughest for a 1 handed backhand. Had he played in the 90s or before, it would be even better.

[ARFED]

Federer`s backhand seems to be much underrated here. Being at his very best, his backhand only breaks down against Nadal on clay, even then he handles his heavy top spin almost better than anyone excluding Djokovic and Murray. The reason his backhand seems rather weak sometimes is because his court positioning, he plays standing on the baseline, he doesn`t camp 5 or 6 feet behind like Gasquet, Almagro or Wawrinka just to name other one handers commonly regarded as better than Fed`s. If you ever played tennis you would know that the hardest groudstroke to play by far is the backhand played off a heavy ball on the rise. It is even much more difficult to do it with a one hander. If Fed backed up just a little to give it more time to set up his backhand, his UE count would drop a lot and the perception regarding his backhand would be te one of a solid as a rock stroke. When Fed gets a surface with a low bounce like the WTF, just watch how he dismantles Nadal`s forehand like it is nothing. I always thought that the match up issue between the both of them is sometimes misguided. When you have such different styles like they have, who is favoured depends heavily on the conditions the match is played on, and who has the best skill set for those given conditions. And with today slow high bouncing surfaces we all know how that goes. You set regularly a match of this two on a faster low bouncing surface and all of a suddden Fed becomes a nightmare match up for Nadal because he wouldn`t have to resign an inch of court position to handle Rafa`s forehand (wich is the reason why Rafa`s forehand is so deadly).

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by TMF

People rate Fed's bh only against Nadal, but they should compare to the rest of the players on the tour. Should we rate Pete's serve on slow surface or clay and ignore the fast surfaces? No, they should see the whole picture. Also, Fed is playing in a current condition that is the toughest for a 1 handed backhand. Had he played in the 90s or before, it would be even better.

You get a lot of crap from certain members sometimes for your statements regarding Fed, but in the above paragraph I think you gave a great defense of his game and are completely spot on. It's true, his game would often get scrutinized and analyzed against this one particular player match up on slower and high bouncing surfaces (news flash current terrain favors the grinders), but not as a whole. Full flight Fed's weapons are unstoppable. He's got the whole package.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

You get a lot of crap from certain members sometimes for your statements regarding Fed, but in the above paragraph I think you gave a great defense of his game and are completely spot on. It's true, his game would often get scrutinized and analyzed against this one particular player match up on slower and high bouncing surfaces (news flash current terrain favors the grinders), but not as a whole. Full flight Fed's weapons are unstoppable. He's got the whole package.

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.

[treblings]

Originally Posted by TMF

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.

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. there´s no reason he should play a two-hander

[bigjimbofan]

Connors in 5 !

[Flash O'Groove]

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.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by TomT

I think it can be argued that today's premier tennis players are generally more professional, stronger and fitter than those of the 1950s and 1960s. Maybe Hoad is an exception. Maybe Hoad was the fittest of his day, at his peak. Lots of maybes. So, let's call this even (and I think I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here) ... because I think that the pro tennis game that Federer has excelled in for the past decade is very much more physically demanding than the game that Hoad and his contemporaries played.

I don't think that the size of Hoad's playing arm really has anything to do with whether or not he would beat Federer. Players in those days had to develop muscles in their playing forearms because of the much heavier racquets and the conventional continental grip of the times. Federer's superior modern technique and comparatively lighter racquet simply doesn't require a huge playing forearm. If Federer played in Hoad's time, then he'd have a bigger forearm. If Hoad was playing today, he'd have a smaller forearm.

Based on what? I'm guessing that Hoad's bread and butter backhand was the slightly undercut backhand of his day. Not that he couldn't hit it hard and place it extremely well, but it just doesn't stack up well against the extreme topspin backhands (including Federer's) of today.

The comparative slowness of the '50s and '60s game rewarded serve and volley tennis. The speed and power of the modern game more or less precludes it. So, ok, Hoad had a better volley than Federer. So what?

We're down to the nitty gritty. References and, most importantly, videos of Hoad playing are required. I've seen hundreds of videos of Federer. Lots of videos of Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Ashe, Nastase, Amritraj, etc., and based on that I think Federer would beat any of them badly. Need some vids of Hoad. Otherwise any comparison between Federer and Hoad is just moot.

Because there are so many variables to consider regarding the different eras of tennis, I think it boils down to this: who is the most talented player? In my opinion, considering all aspects of the game (from what I've seen live and on tv and video), Roger Federer is by far the most talented player who has ever played the game.

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.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by abmk

except that :

a) he does that in half of his posts
b) what he said is pure cr*p ....... comparing an at his best hoad with average federer

a 7/10 may be fair enough for federer's volleys on an average, I'd put it at 7.5 ..... I'd put his BH and return on an average much higher than 7/10, closer to 8.5 ...

most importantly, his BH can be suspect against high balls , may be inconsistent at times, his return can be a bit passive at times, his volleys sloppy at times, especially FH volleys ...... but this is an average playing federer ....

at his very best, his volleys, BH and return, all are excellent and none of them a weakness ......

abmk, It's just a pity that Federer shows his best backhands and volleys rather seldom ahgainst Nadal and others...

[Graphiteking]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

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.
F
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.

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?

[pc1]

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.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by TMF

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.

TMF, Laver and Rosewall had to deal with super serves from Gonzalez, Newcombe, Smith and Tanner. Thus no progress since then.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Graphiteking

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?

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).