Federer would have lost to McEnroe and Borg, insists Becker

[Apun94]

https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/federer-greatest-ever-lose-mcenroe-034732228.html

Tennis off season right now. I am bored. Apparently Becker is too. Says Borg and McEnroe would embarrass Fed if he played with wooden rackets.
What say yall?

 

[-NN-]

It's fair to give the benefit of the doubt to those guys if imagining that Federer play them in their circumstances and not his own. I think he's just basically saying that you can't compare eras.

 

[Sysyphus]

Only God can created something out of nothing, pastor said. That was until he witnessed modern journalism.

 

[tennis_pro]

Well duh it's likely he'd lose but it's even more likely that he'd decimate Mac using current technology.

Where does Becker take money to booze from btw?

 

[Legend of Borg]

borg/mcenroe spend years playing with wooden rackets, no sh1t they'd have an edge over fed if they all went back in time

fed is a vastly superior player to both regardless of any hypothetical "he'd lose with a wooden racket" scenario

if we reversed this situation i would hate to think how badly borg/mcenroe would get destroyed at wimbledon/USO/AO with modern equipment, they'd look like juniors at their first ATP match

is this how becker makes money nowadays?

 

[Pheasant]

McEnroe in 1984 would have spanked the 2 year old Federer on the court. And Borg would have spanked him too, even though Borg was far from his peak in 1984.

Legend has it that Roger Federer's peak years were from 1981-2002, and from 2008-present.

 

[tennis_pro]

borg/mcenroe spend years playing with wooden rackets, no sh1t they'd have an edge over fed if they all went back in time

fed is a vastly superior player to both regardless of any hypothetical "he'd lose with a wooden racket" scenario

if we reversed this situation i would hate to think how badly borg/mcenroe would get destroyed at wimbledon/USO/AO with modern equipment, they'd look like juniors at their first ATP match

is this how becker makes money nowadays?

I like how our posts have the same structure.

1) duh
2) they would both lose using current technology
3) a joke about Becker being broke

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

fedr

 

[Devin]

Hard to say. Borg could possibly be the GOAT with modern strings, pretty sure Natf feels the same way.

McEnroe had superb touch and feel and could probably beat Federer on grass a majority of the time, but I don't think I'd give him the edge on clay or certain hard courts.

Hard to say really.

 

[Bukmeikara]

I think that older generations deserve respect/recognition. But like anything in life, there is a line beyond which you start to over do it.
Federer dominates tennis in a era in which pretty much every country could produce top tennis player, in the 80's that wasnt the picture. If you had 100 000 pro's during those yeears, in 2018 you have 10 000 000 which increase the chance of wonderkids. Not to mention the fact that even if Borg and Mcenroe were the same athletes as Federer and Nadal they would still lose 6-1 6-2 just because the advanced tactics, strategies and co. This is evolution, in the 80's players had "a","b","c" in their bag of tricks today there is a whole alphabet to choose from - its a lot more harder to come on top in the later than in the first. The same story goes in the NBA, old players think that they actually have a playing chance against Golden State Warriors + Barkley went as far to say that they would swept them 4-0

 

[JMR]

Becker concluded his comments with this: "I am amazed by his commitment to the game considering he has four kids, as that was one of the reasons I decided to quit my career."

I had thought that Boris didn't reach his fourth offspring until 2010, but I'm sure he knows these details better than I.

 

[George Turner]

Becker concluded his comments with this: "I am amazed by his commitment to the game considering he has four kids, as that was one of the reasons I decided to quit my career."

I had thought that Boris didn't reach his fourth offspring until 2010, but I'm sure he knows these details better than I.

BS. He quit his career because he knew he was no longer capable of winning Wimbledon! His final match there against Rafter is quite a sad match to watch, like Sugar Ray Robinson or Muhammad Ali being beaten up in their last fights.

Bankruptcy seems to have affected Beckers well being quite a bit

 

[Legend of Borg]

I like how our posts have the same structure.

1) duh
2) they would both lose using current technology
3) a joke about Becker being broke

lmao

bruh, this is just becker baiting me, he's pretty good at it

 

[Red Rick]

I remember asking why a similar topic was a thread.

So I'll rephrase

Why are there multiple threads about this

 

[GreenClay]

Huge Borg fan here (and used to work for his company), but give Fed a few months with a wood racket and Fed just might win. He wouldn’t have to change his grips to play with a wooden frame

 

[Apun94]

I remember asking why a similar topic was a thread.

So I'll rephrase

Why are there multiple threads about this

Because there is nothing better to do till IW

 

[Apun94]

Huge Borg fan here (and used to work for his company), but give Fed a few months with a wood racket and Fed just might win. He wouldn’t have to change his grips to play with a wooden frame

Yeah no. As freakishly, ridiculously talented as Roger is, he aint beating Borg with a few months of training, no way. He would take years, easy. His whole technique, movement and tactics would have to change to challenge Borg with a wooden racket

 

[Apun94]

The same story goes in the NBA, old players think that they actually have a playing chance against Golden State Warriors + Barkley went as far to say that they would swept them 4-0

Lol what, in baseball?

 

[citybert]

Watch the old matches when they played. The movement and footwork is trash compared to the guys today. Becker back on that pipe or trying to get page views and hits

 

[timnz]

Watch the old matches when they played. The movement and footwork is trash compared to the guys today. Becker back on that pipe or trying to get page views and hits

Can't agree at all. Watch Borg play Lendl at the Masters or Borg play Connors at the 1979 Pepsi Grand Slam - Borg is as fast or faster than any guy today. And his footwork is superb.

 

[gplracer]

McEnroe and Borg never won a grand slam pastvthe age of 25. You cannot compare eras sincecthe players of today have poly and he benefit of the March of the game. That said Becker is an idiot.

 

[gplracer]

If you go back and look at the McEnroe Sampras match the year he won his first US Open. He ushered in a new power game. McEnroe was 31 and outclassed.

 

[FedBeckRas]

People need to realize the cream rises to the top of each generation. Each great player in a given generation would been a great player in a different generation.
You take the equipment available and use your skills,mental strength and fitness.
By the way, when was the last time McEnroe or Borg walked on court with a wood racquet? They use the best technology available for their game.
If Federer grew up with wood he would of still been an all-time great. McEnroe wouldn't have 7 majors and Borg wouldn't have 11 majors.

 

[droliver]

Becker "However, would he have beaten McEnroe when he was at his very best in the 1984 Wimbledon final using a very different type of racquet to the one he has now? I doubt it.“

I think Becker is forgetting Roger grew up with a racquet, the Pro Staff 85, that was already being used on tour in. 1984. Methinks he would have been just fine.

 

[True Fanerer]

Federer apparently didn't text Boris back after the AO .

 

[TennisD]

Becker "However, would he have beaten McEnroe when he was at his very best in the 1984 Wimbledon final using a very different type of racquet to the one he has now? I doubt it.“

I think Becker is forgetting Roger grew up with a racquet, the Pro Staff 85, that was already being used on tour in. 1984. Methinks he would have been just fine.

Exactly! Even if we get beyond the fact that comparing players from different eras is baseless and silly, Federer (whether from 2008, 2018, or any year in between) would absolutely mash 1984 McEnroe.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

borg/mcenroe spend years playing with wooden rackets, no sh1t they'd have an edge over fed if they all went back in time

fed is a vastly superior player to both regardless of any hypothetical "he'd lose with a wooden racket" scenario

if we reversed this situation i would hate to think how badly borg/mcenroe would get destroyed at wimbledon/USO/AO with modern equipment, they'd look like juniors at their first ATP match

is this how becker makes money nowadays?

I’m surprised to hear you say that. So the “legend” of Borg isn’t real? I think Borg would have adapted to the modern game better than McEnroe.

 

[Steve0904]

Becker concluded his comments with this: "I am amazed by his commitment to the game considering he has four kids, as that was one of the reasons I decided to quit my career."

I had thought that Boris didn't reach his fourth offspring until 2010, but I'm sure he knows these details better than I.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

 

[timnz]

If you go back and look at the McEnroe Sampras match the year he won his first US Open. He ushered in a new power game. McEnroe was 31 and outclassed.

In fairness to McEnroe he was only a shadow of his 1984 form in 1990.

 

[Feather]

I have been a die hard fan of Roger Federer from W 2004. I have never said, not even once, that Roger Federer is the GOAT. Simply because I don't believe in GOAT. It's difficult to compare eras. Players used different racquet, played under different conditions and technology, so for me it's a silly thing to say that one player is greater than all without a shade of doubt. It's a huge disservice to the legends of the past to anoint Roger Federer as GOAT

 

[ChrisRF]

During the off-season I watched all the 1980/1981 and some of the late 70s Slam finals in full lenght (except AO where no top players were involved back then), and came to the following conclusions:

1) Borg’s mythical mental toughness is a bit overrated. That was especially shown in the 1980 US Open final, where he failed to serve out a set 3 times and hit crucial double faults in the 5th set. At a time he totally lost it and conceded 6 service games in a row!

2) McEnroe was better and more consistant from the baseline than I thought, despite his forehand looks similar to Mischa Zverev’s. Still there is no way he would beat Federer over the long distance with these kind of shots. He would have his moments, but that’s it.

3) The surfaces were extremely different back then. On grass there was almost no baseline game while on clay almost no volleys were played. On hardcourt it was versatile (the typical baseliner Borg stayed back, the attacker McEnroe did serve and volley).

4) The wooden rackets were not made to handle fast and flat shots. That’s why only on clay and to a lesser extent on hardcourt real swings were possible. On grass it was next to impossible to hit a good passing shot against a decent approach shot. That’s why net play was so effective, and not only because of good serving.

5) Borg’s game didn’t look natural at Wimbledon, but he looked great at RG. However, he wasn’t “special” in a way Rafa is, but rather relentless. That’s why I think he wouldn’t have beaten prime Federer even on clay on a regular basis. I actually have the (most likely unpopular) opinion that Borg wouldn’t look much better against Federer than the Ferrer or Davydenko type of players. He just wouldn’t hurt him. Only Nadal could do this, due to being better than Borg AND having the lefty advantage AND playing a totally unique style. All thas was needed to trouble prime Federer day in, day out.

 

[mental midget]

i think the issue is that boris framed the classic debate in a way that doesn't measure the relevant comparison. would fed transported back in time with a wooden racket jammed in his hands be able to take those guys on? of course not. but is federers talent such that if he grew up contemporaneous with those guys, he'd stand a chance? er...i think so. The reverse is also true, mac and borg were world class and would no doubt be competitive today, albeit with different-looking games.

 

[smoledman]

Boris must be sniffing the white powder again.

 

[Steve0904]

I have been a die hard fan of Roger Federer from W 2004. I have never said, not even once, that Roger Federer is the GOAT. Simply because I don't believe in GOAT. It's difficult to compare eras. Players used different racquet, played under different conditions and technology, so for me it's a silly thing to say that one player is greater than all without a shafsh of doubt. It's a huge disservice to the legends of the past to anoint Roger Federer as GOAT

I understand your point. I actually agree for the most part, but at the same time it's easy enough to call Federer the GOAT without being disrespectful to past legends. Most of them would agree he's the GOAT anyway. He just is because he is. Because he has the records and the numbers and plays the style he does.

For the record, I only ever say that Federer is the best player I've personally ever seen (not necessarily the "GOAT"). Because I'm too young to remember Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Laver etc... and I only caught the tail end of Sampras's career and not his real prime.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

I can't imagine so. If you put Fed back in that era with him having learnt all of his tennis with a wooden racket in his hand I think he would still end up an ATG.

 

[Tennease]

It would not prevent Becker to lose his grand slam trophies and appeal for public help to find where they are.

 

[70後]

Nobody is more or less "guilty" when it comes to technology. When something new appears, it is about who is fastest to make the comprehensive switch over needed. A big change requires both a complete hardware and software overhaul. You can't just pick up a new pc and use it with an obsolete os from 10 years back.

Even 1960's racquets were not comparable to what Budge was using in the 1930's. I'm sure that monks in some monastery in the 12 century hitting a ball around for exercise in their habits and sandals will exclaim to 20th and 21'st century players that in their day, they had to make their wood racquets out of twigs and tree branches. And you played with that, sir!

Prince original graphite was already around in 1980. Going back in time to that year with the knowledge they possess now, today's players will just get hold of the newest technology available.

I will just remind Boris of McEnroe's rant after 1985 that : "No way Becker would have won Wimbledon with a wooden racquet! No way!"

Of course McEnroe wasn't using a wood racquet himself either.

 

[Deon Sanders]

What do I think?

If Boris is betting one way you know the opposite will happen

 

[metsman]

5) Borg’s game didn’t look natural at Wimbledon, but he looked great at RG. However, he wasn’t “special” in a way Rafa is, but rather relentless. That’s why I think he wouldn’t have beaten prime Federer even on clay on a regular basis. I actually have the (most likely unpopular) opinion that Borg wouldn’t look much better against Federer than the Ferrer or Davydenko type of players. He just wouldn’t hurt him. Only Nadal could do this, due to being better than Borg AND having the lefty advantage AND playing a totally unique style. All thas was needed to trouble prime Federer day in, day out.

You can't be serious...there's very little difference between peak Borg and Nadal on clay. Yes, Borg not being lefty is better for Fed, but he's still better on clay overall. Comparing him to Ferrer and Davydenko is like comparing Sampras to Raonic on grass.

 

[Sentinel]

https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/federer-greatest-ever-lose-mcenroe-034732228.html

Tennis off season right now. I am bored. Apparently Becker is too. Says Borg and McEnroe would embarrass Fed if he played with wooden rackets.
What say yall?

Does he say anything about if Nole played with a wooden racket?
Or Nadal?
I suppose the rest would all win.

 

[Username_]

Fed could use his PS85 becuz no one moonball to the backhand no?

 

[roysid]

Did anyone ask Boris
" Would Nadal and Djokovic lost to any of these guys"

and check out his response.


Why Boris had to demean Federer (subtly though) every time

 

[Jmauer]

I must say I'm surprised Boris doesn't think Rog could have taken out Mac or Borg back in the day. With Rog's style - classic technique, great hands, uncanny balance, you would think he would be exactly the guy from this generation who would have a great game for the wooden racket. If Boris would have said Rafa or Nole I wouldn't have been surprised, due to their stronger grips on the forehand side, and more of a baseline game in general. Interesting, Boris. Interesting.

Fantasy Match:

I would LOVE to see this match! Can you imagine...early 80's Wimby grass and equipment of the day... Rog versus Borg and/or Mac! How cool would that be to watch!!!

 

[ChrisRF]

You can't be serious...there's very little difference between peak Borg and Nadal on clay. Yes, Borg not being lefty is better for Fed, but he's still better on clay overall. Comparing him to Ferrer and Davydenko is like comparing Sampras to Raonic on grass.

Only directly against Federer. And maybe I should have included Hewitt in this category, so it would at least have been a player who won Slams and could beat Federer is his early days, but after having watched all those matches I cannot find another conclusion. For me Borg had no similarity to Nadal at all, and just like you I started watching with the expectation to see those similarities but couldn’t.

Also remember Ferrer and Davydenko were top players with some wins against the other Big 4 players apart from Federer. They just didn’t have the shots to trouble the greatest shot-maker of all time, which is Federer. That’s why they looked so bad. Borg also could only hope for unforced errors against Federer. I cannot see how his shots could bring Federer in defensive position on a majority of points. Federer would have severely punished these shots.

I stay at my opinion that if Borg had to play in the Fedal era, he would have no hope to win his usual “Channel Slam” titles. I cannot see one single occasion where he could beat both of them in one of those tournaments. This way he would look like the other players I mentioned. Of course, it could be different if he learned a different playing style in another era, but then he wouldn’t be the Björn Borg we know, and we couldn’t speculate anymore.

Sampras/Raonic is not similar, because Sampras could actually play tennis while Raonic is ONLY a servebot with a slightly better forehand than Isner.

By the way, a man who I see beating Federer occasionally (on his absolute best day) is Becker himself. He was practically the inventor of the modern power game and could also generate big emotions which would make the audience not entirely pro-Fed in such moments.

 

[JackGates]

I have been a die hard fan of Roger Federer from W 2004. I have never said, not even once, that Roger Federer is the GOAT. Simply because I don't believe in GOAT. It's difficult to compare eras. Players used different racquet, played under different conditions and technology, so for me it's a silly thing to say that one player is greater than all without a shade of doubt. It's a huge disservice to the legends of the past to anoint Roger Federer as GOAT

Sure, you can compare across eras. Its not like Borg and Pete have 18 majors and won all majors and won slams past ages 35. Then, sure they are too close, but now no excuses. Agassi could win all four and be nr.1 at age 33, so no excuses for Pete. And even without the French, Pete still isn't close to 23 consecutive semis.

Borg too, if Connors from his era could play at age 38 lol, no excuses for Borg. And Borg won channel slam 3 times, much harder than to win USO and W, so no excuses for him not to win. Even if you give Borg 3-4 AO titles, still not close to 20.

And Borg and Pete are only Fed's goat competition, so not that many people left. Djokovic and Nadal are from the same era, so we can easily compare them with Federer.

So, the only ones left are Laver and Rosewall, ok I give you that, you can't compare those, but you can split eras. You can say they are the best in classic era, Fed is the best in the open era.

So, I don't see why Fed can't be at least the greatest in the open era, nobody is close for now.

Even weak era theory doesn't hold up, Fed has 30 GS finals and billions of semis, you don't even play greats before the finals, so there are no excuses for others not having those stats.

Sure, sometimes having an extra great in your era can make the difference between slam wins, but no difference between making GS finals and semis!!!

 

[Apun94]

Does he say anything about if Nole played with a wooden racket?
Or Nadal?
I suppose the rest would all win.

I agree. Federer is the only talent less schmuck among these 3

 

[Apun94]

Can't agree at all. Watch Borg play Lendl at the Masters or Borg play Connors at the 1979 Pepsi Grand Slam - Borg is as fast or faster than any guy today. And his footwork is superb.

But not compared to today's freakish movement of someone like Nadal, Federer etc. No way

 

[Charleneriva]

Only God can created something out of nothing, pastor said. That was until he witnessed modern journalism.

and Internet forums.

 

[ojo rojo]

no?

 

[BorgCash]

McEnroe in 1984 would have spanked the 2 year old Federer on the court. And Borg would have spanked him too, even though Borg was far from his peak in 1984.

Legend has it that Roger Federer's peak years were from 1981-2002, and from 2008-present.

From 1981?