Tennis is evolving
Banned
Any suggestions? I personally think the game passed players like Becker, Courier and Chang by.
Players from the past who would succeed in the current era
- Thread starter Tennis is evolving
- Start date
HetTheGreaterer
Banned
Agassi, pete, lendl, courier, borg
Tennis is evolving
Banned
Lol at all those suggestions. Maybe Agassi if he was fit.
ibbi
G.O.A.T.
The only ones that wouldn't make it would be people who either were so tied to serve and volley they'd probably be rendered obsolete, or ones who don't have the discipline or drive to work to be in the kind of physical shape you need to be in today.
Other than that you put one of the modern day rackets doing half the work in the hands of guys used to having to do much more work on each shot, and they're going to have a field day.
Other than that you put one of the modern day rackets doing half the work in the hands of guys used to having to do much more work on each shot, and they're going to have a field day.
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
With this kind of thinking you have to think players as of today really sucks compared to players in the future we don’t know yet.
It doesn’t work that way.
1stVolley
Professional
I think that players with the highest motivation would transform their technique to make the most out of modern equipment. So I would not rule out people like Connors, whose diffident serve and forehand were not up to today's standards. Certainly Pancho Gonzales, Becker, Chang, Laver, Rosewall and others also had that drive to transform their games to compete successfully today. Laver, because of his height, probably couldn't make the top 3 today, but he'd be a super Schwartzman.
Tennis is evolving
Banned
You can't compare players against the future because it doesn't exist yet.
As for your response in my other thread Isner or Anderson in peak form could outserve 06 Roddick at Wimbledon just like baby Murray outreturned against him. Murray didn't struggle to beat him that year.
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
But with your logic players of the future will 100% sure be better than players of today. Even 10 years from now. Or are you such a fanboy your own logic doesn’t count for your favourite player?
I asked you a question in the other thread.
Tennis is evolving
Banned
I believe the best players are the best today and the media, news everyone agrees with me. Agree to disagree.
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
But can you tell me what in the 2019 final was better quality tennis than the 2008? You must have a reason you think like this.
News and everyone else don’t agree with you.
Tennis is evolving
Banned
They served harder, moved better and everything seemed crisper. I also think Novak is better than Rafa on grass and has a cleaner game for the surface.
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
So you think Novak 2019 is better than Novak 2011?
Musterrific
Hall of Fame
Muster would have benefitted massively from the surfaces being slowed down for homogenization.
We always start examining this question the wrong direction. We ask who are athletically 'capable' of doing this. or physically built to do this, or We ask might be 'talented' or disciplined enough to do this.
I ask myself which of these players would enjoy learning and pursuing the modern game and the modern atmosphere enough to want to take that far. Would they like the tempo of the on court sport, and the tempo of the modern professional life. Its not a thinkers, a tacticians sport anymore and the sport can become a bit more mundane in its execution. It lacks a lot of the comradery/ mentoring between the generations and the competitors. You don't get to know the other players in the locker room, never travel together, as well as you get to know your physical trainer, and your sports nutritionist and your serving coach via skype.
Assuming all these greats learned the sport, as a kid, how many would get the same kind of emotional and intellectual positives that fed them to keep up with it, and sacrifice for it? If the lifestyle its rewards are different, they might not bother with the steps it takes to find out more. Might take up scuba diving, soccer, get married or stay in college.
Those are the questions to start with.
I ask myself which of these players would enjoy learning and pursuing the modern game and the modern atmosphere enough to want to take that far. Would they like the tempo of the on court sport, and the tempo of the modern professional life. Its not a thinkers, a tacticians sport anymore and the sport can become a bit more mundane in its execution. It lacks a lot of the comradery/ mentoring between the generations and the competitors. You don't get to know the other players in the locker room, never travel together, as well as you get to know your physical trainer, and your sports nutritionist and your serving coach via skype.
Assuming all these greats learned the sport, as a kid, how many would get the same kind of emotional and intellectual positives that fed them to keep up with it, and sacrifice for it? If the lifestyle its rewards are different, they might not bother with the steps it takes to find out more. Might take up scuba diving, soccer, get married or stay in college.
Those are the questions to start with.
D
Deleted member 768841
Guest
We all need to go outside.
ChrisG
Professional
A lot of stupid answers. Courier was able to crush that little yellow ball with a 85in racquet and whatever non poly string, imagine him with poly and more forgiving frame. Same with Sampras. Or any champ from the previous era. Do you really think Big Mac would struggle to get various slams ? Now is maybe (big 3 apart) the weakest era we’ve seen in terms of technique and tactic. While having the best physical/ mental training ever. I’ve been watching tennis from previous eras during this lockout, and I’ve been stunned how well these players hit the ball. Name them : Becker, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras, Stich,etc...
Who is nuts enough to believe a Thiem or a tsitsipas stands a chance against Rios or Muster ?
Who is nuts enough to believe a Thiem or a tsitsipas stands a chance against Rios or Muster ?
flutzingitaway
Semi-Pro
That list would be surprisingly long. I don't see Navratilova, Wade, McEnroe, Edberg, Becker, even Gonzales and Sampras to an extent magically being willing to become predominant baseliners today. Perhaps Court, Goolagong, and Connors (Connors was more baseline anyway, but pretty all court as well) would be both willing and able to adapt fully, that is about it. And then there are those who simply could not be top players as baseliners or in a baseline heavy game whether they were willing or not- Shriver, Cash, Newcombe, Ashe, Smith, King (King's ground game was laughable, especialy that forehand).
In 1980, Hoad claimed that Laver would dominate Borg in a hypothetical head-to-head series.
flutzingitaway
Semi-Pro
The ex greats, even some of the finest and most knowledge (Laver, Hoad, Kramer, Gonzales, etc...) all make some dubious claims. Most of them say Riggs was a better player than Rosewall, something I greatly doubt. I know they are far more qualified to speak on that than me, but seriously there isn't anyway to explain away that monstrous a disparity in results in their respective eras, and it sure is not like Rosewall played in a weak era. And Rosewall was still making slam finals only about 12 years younger than Riggs being unable to beat the 2nd best woman player, LOL!
Not to mention many of their own statements and opinions contradict and I have seen them all, there is a great variance which makes sense, but means the word of just one ex great/historian/analyist is not some final word on the matter. What you stated was Hoad's opinion but what were the opinions of Laver, Kramer, Gonzales, Collins, Barnett, RIggs (who did a ton of analysis work). Did the majority of them collectively say the same thing?
flutzingitaway
Semi-Pro
Agreed. Grass he would still be hopeless, but he had some good hard court results in his time, so with slower conditions he could have really done something there perhaps.
Only Gonzales played Laver very much of your names, Hoad played Laver a lot.
Hoad stated, "the only real way to assess players is to play them." Anything else is just fantasy.
Enga
Hall of Fame
What a weird name, tennis is evolving... I wouldnt say so much evolving, as tennis is just different, and players are adapting. Evolution in every day use always seems to imply "better", but that concept doesnt really work when you think about putting a wooden racket with gut strings and leather grips in some of these players hands does it?
RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
Weak troll era
the green god
Professional
The ones denigrating the past greats are looking at this in a vacuum. They look at these old matches and think there's no way they would be able to match up to today with the speed of the ball present players hit, but players adapt fast. Look at a player like Lendl. He came on tour in 1978 and retired in 1994. By 1994 his ground strokes were light years from the speed he was hitting them in 1978. It didn't happen overnight, but he just kept hitting the ball harder and harder to keep up with whatever competition he was facing. Same with Agassi. The image is everything Agassi would be smoked by Fed and Nadal, but old physically impaired Agassi was able to hang with them with no problem. Point is, being the best in the world at something is extremely rare. They have certain talents and qualities, mental and physical, that translate to any era. Put them being born in 1995 and they would be just as great today.
flutzingitaway
Semi-Pro
Good point there. Did Hoad play Borg though? I believe not.
I suspect that he did, privately. He offered a first-hand assessment of Borg.
Hoad played Edberg in the late 70's or early 80's and bageled the Swede.
I don't think that the speed of hitting was very different between today and the old pro era, it seems that measured service speeds were about the same.
But the jumbo racquet heads of today allow more return of service. The game has become easier.
the green god
Professional
For one off serves, for sure. Repeatedly? Uh, no.
I don't know about easier, just different.
How do you mean? Why just for one-offs? Gonzales and Hoad could whale away for hours with their serves.
the green god
Professional
Pancho may very well be the GOAT, but if you think he's bringing it 120 time after time, I don't know what else to add to any of this.
Gonzales had a very easy, consistent serving motion, he could serve for hours at a time, day after day, in a punishing schedule of over 150 matches per year.
The current group of stars would wilt just thinking about that schedule.
ttwarrior1
Hall of Fame
McEnroe says Becker, becker, becker
flutzingitaway
Semi-Pro
Borg I think for sure. He would be perfectly suited to the current era. In some ways he would be a better version of Nadal perhaps.
Lendl I think as well would be very well suited to the current era.
Someone like Mary Joe Fernandez would probably fit in better with the current defensive conservative baseline style of the WTA than she did when she played.
Evert and Seles for sure would be well suited to the current era.
Agassi would be.
Someone like Mecir I think would be.
With a few adaptions Sampras and Becker would be decently suited as well.
Lendl I think as well would be very well suited to the current era.
Someone like Mary Joe Fernandez would probably fit in better with the current defensive conservative baseline style of the WTA than she did when she played.
Evert and Seles for sure would be well suited to the current era.
Agassi would be.
Someone like Mecir I think would be.
With a few adaptions Sampras and Becker would be decently suited as well.
What kind of volleys is this? not good is it?
the green god
Professional
"The greatest teacher, failure is."
I just read that Borg did visit the Hoad tennis ranch, and Hoad always played a few games or sets with his guests at the resort.
So it seems almost certain that they would play a practice match or two.
bluetrain4
G.O.A.T.
Sister question - who from today would succeed in past eras?
Winners or Errors
Legend
Your evidence is a match featuring 41 year old Pancho Gonzales? I mean, I know he made it into the late stages of several tournaments in the first year of the open era, 1969, but you've got to be kidding putting up a guy who was a shadow of himself as your example of his prime. That's like saying the best version of Rosewall was the one Connors crushed at Wimbledon at the age of 40. Pancho's best tennis was well in the rearview by the time the open era began.
Federer.
the green god
Professional
Yep, you are right. Hoad, small wood racquet, returning on baseline or a foot inside on one of the fastest courts ever with no problem and Pancho raining 120-130 mph bombs all night long. Ya got me.
On a good day.
The measured service speeds did not change much from the 1950's to the present day, what has changed is the size of the racquet heads. With the new jumbo racquet heads, my grandmother can return a serve.
Similar threads
- Poll