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

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/tennis/top-stories/Federer-couldve-competed-successfully-in-our-era-Becker/articleshow/17258860.cms

Legendary tennis player Boris Becker rated Roger Federer very highly and said due to his sound technique the Swiss probably could have been the only player to have competed successfully in the "serve and volley" era.

"The reason why Federer is still successful at the age of 31 is because he has got a good technique. He can play from the baseline and when he has to, he can also come to the net more often than other players," Becker said during an event.

"I don't think (Rafael) Nadal or (Novak) Djokovic would have been so successful in the era of serve and volley but Federer could have played," the German added.
 

Ico

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

mental midget

Hall of Fame
it's hard to say. they developed games suited to the conditions. i've seen nadal exhibit great touch at times, but it's not the cornerstone of his game, obviously. of the three federer's game is the best showcase for 'talent' in the broader sense, and i think it's a given that he'd be at or near the top in pretty much any era.

i would put edberg very close to roger in the talent category. i've read articles where he said that he simply loved to attack, attack, attack and cultivated his game accordingly (hence the conti forehand, simply a means to get to the net, really). but if you watched his career it was obvious that had he cultivated a stronger all-court game, he had the athletic tools to do pretty much anything on a tennis court.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
It's not a surprise because anyone can see Roger can adapt to any playing condition. As successful as he is on slow courts in the past years, he would even be better with a faster courts. So given Federer playing in an era of serve and volley, he would have a field day.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
It's not a surprise because anyone can see Roger can adapt to any playing condition. As successful as he is on slow courts in the past years, he would even be better with a faster courts. So given Federer playing in an era of serve and volley, he would have a field day.
You presume everyone would be playing serve and volley in a field with players like today, for instance thinking players with the exact skill sets of Nadal and Djokovic, the same ones who Becker himself claims would be irrelevant in that era, would be his main rivals in even a serve and volley based era, which is a silly assumption. In an era of serve and volleyers Federer would be in alot more trouble relative to his current dominance in the baseline only era, as while they dont exist today in the past there were MANY players with both better serves and especialy better volleys than Federer. In the 90s alone Sampras, Becker, Stich, Krajicek (yes 1 slam wonder Krajicek of all people), were superior to Federer in both serving and volleying ability. Edberg and Rafter were much superior in volleying. Philipoussis and Ivanisevic superior in serving.
 
You presume everyone would be playing serve and volley in a field with players like today, for instance thinking players with the exact skill sets of Nadal and Djokovic, the same ones who Becker himself claims would be irrelevant in that era, would be his main rivals in even a serve and volley based era, which is a silly assumption. In an era of serve and volleyers Federer would be in alot more trouble relative to his current dominance in the baseline only era, as while they dont exist today in the past there were MANY players with both better serves and especialy better volleys than Federer. In the 90s alone Sampras, Becker, Stich, Krajicek (yes 1 slam wonder Krajicek of all people), were superior to Federer in both serving and volleying ability. Edberg and Rafter were much superior in volleying. Philipoussis and Ivanisevic superior in serving.
If Agassi could win 8 Slams having turned pro in the late 80s, Federer could easily win atleast 12 Slams, even he were playing with the same style as he is now. But he wouldn't, he'd be a different player if he were from that generation and he'd have more success than that. Besides, seeing how well he's playing at 31, he'd be racking up Slams in 2000, 2001 and 2002.
 

Mustard

Talk Tennis Guru
We can never know. But the 1990s clay scene had very little serve and volley. The clay scene at that time was actually an early sign of the sort of gruelling matches we see today, full of engrossing rallies. One guy definitely harmed by the more modern game compared to 1990s conditions is Lleyton Hewitt. He loved playing against serve and volleyers who pressured him at the net.

Nadal in the 1990s would have played a lot more on clay and a lot less on hardcourts.
 

kiki

Banned
You presume everyone would be playing serve and volley in a field with players like today, for instance thinking players with the exact skill sets of Nadal and Djokovic, the same ones who Becker himself claims would be irrelevant in that era, would be his main rivals in even a serve and volley based era, which is a silly assumption. In an era of serve and volleyers Federer would be in alot more trouble relative to his current dominance in the baseline only era, as while they dont exist today in the past there were MANY players with both better serves and especialy better volleys than Federer. In the 90s alone Sampras, Becker, Stich, Krajicek (yes 1 slam wonder Krajicek of all people), were superior to Federer in both serving and volleying ability. Edberg and Rafter were much superior in volleying. Philipoussis and Ivanisevic superior in serving.
Agreed.

But Federer is more of a 1980´s player, where I think he would have also shone quite a lot ( although would not have dominated nearly as much, of course)

Tennis changed a lot.Sampras or Becker would have very hard times in today´s conditions, the same that Nadal and Djokovic or Murray under the 90´s conditions.
 

Mustard

Talk Tennis Guru
Sampras and Becker stayed back a lot on hardcourt and clay for much of their careers anyway, and carpet courts don't exist on tour anymore.
 

Clarky21

Banned
So the only player who can be successful in both the eras = Sexie Rogie , whats surprising about that , its a known fact.


It is? I guess you have a time machine that transported Fed and Nadal back to that era to know for a fact that Fed could hack it while Nadal could not. Nice DeLorean,Doc Brown. :lol:
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
You presume everyone would be playing serve and volley in a field with players like today, for instance thinking players with the exact skill sets of Nadal and Djokovic, the same ones who Becker himself claims would be irrelevant in that era, would be his main rivals in even a serve and volley based era, which is a silly assumption. In an era of serve and volleyers Federer would be in alot more trouble relative to his current dominance in the baseline only era, as while they dont exist today in the past there were MANY players with both better serves and especialy better volleys than Federer. In the 90s alone Sampras, Becker, Stich, Krajicek (yes 1 slam wonder Krajicek of all people), were superior to Federer in both serving and volleying ability. Edberg and Rafter were much superior in volleying. Philipoussis and Ivanisevic superior in serving.
But instead of being a dominant baseliner today, Federer would be a dominant s/v player, as he would adapt to the different environment. Of course converting to a dominant s/v, he would give up some his baseline prowess, there's a give and take.

In today's era, a great baseliner would be a slam winners. Being a s/v player is dead meat. But in the 90s, great s/v players AND great baseliners both can win multiple slams. So with more option to play with, this gives Roger better chance because he's a versatile player. He can win as a baseliner or a s/v player, or a combination of both. Players in the 90s doesn't have his versatility. Unlike today, it's impossible to win slam playing s/v, regardless of his versatility. I think variety(mixture of s/v and baseline game) works to his advantage.
 

Mustard

Talk Tennis Guru
Why assume that Nadal couldn't adapt? He isn't exactly a bad volleyer. And in the 1990s, Nadal would have been free to play a load of clay-court tournaments anyway.
 

reversef

Hall of Fame
We can never know. But the 1990s clay scene had very little serve and volley. The clay scene at that time was actually an early sign of the sort of gruelling matches we see today, full of engrossing rallies. One guy definitely harmed by the more modern game compared to 1990s conditions is Lleyton Hewitt. He loved playing against serve and volleyers who pressured him at the net.

Nadal in the 1990s would have played a lot more on clay and a lot less on hardcourts.
Exactly. In the beginning of the nineties, many experts were already worried because of the lack of new serve and volley players. It was already considered a species at risk of extinction.
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
You presume everyone would be playing serve and volley in a field with players like today, for instance thinking players with the exact skill sets of Nadal and Djokovic, the same ones who Becker himself claims would be irrelevant in that era, would be his main rivals in even a serve and volley based era, which is a silly assumption. In an era of serve and volleyers Federer would be in alot more trouble relative to his current dominance in the baseline only era, as while they dont exist today in the past there were MANY players with both better serves and especialy better volleys than Federer. In the 90s alone Sampras, Becker, Stich, Krajicek (yes 1 slam wonder Krajicek of all people), were superior to Federer in both serving and volleying ability. Edberg and Rafter were much superior in volleying. Philipoussis and Ivanisevic superior in serving.
You are correct.

Nadal and Djokovic would have been probably a lot less significant in fast conditions. The challengers would have been other, but Federer would have stayed dominant, just like his real career turned out to be.
 

Mustard

Talk Tennis Guru
You are correct.

Nadal and Djokovic would have been probably a lot less significant in fast conditions. The challengers would have been other, but Federer would have stayed dominant, just like his real career turned out to be.
Oh, of course :neutral:
 
Last edited:

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
Why assume that Nadal couldn't adapt? He isn't exactly a bad volleyer. And in the 1990s, Nadal would have been free to play a load of clay-court tournaments anyway.
Because he cannot addapt to the presented faster surfaces as it is, never mind faster than that.

A load of claycourt tourneys wouldn't mean more success outside of clay, would it?

And, why talking about clay at all, when the conversation is about the faster conditions of the 80ies and the 90ies?

Going deliberately off-topic with your inane ****ish babble, are you?
 

RF20Lennon

Legend
Becker is right but lucky for nadal and nole that there is no carpet and that most all the HC's have slowed down. Take a fast court like cincy and its no wonder neither of the two have won it. Although Djokovic has gotten to the final 4 times he hasnt won a set.
 

dimeaxe

Semi-Pro
Becker would be destroyed by Novak in any conditions, he's not really the smartest man in the world, better for him to shut up.
 

Mustard

Talk Tennis Guru
Because he cannot addapt to the presented faster surfaces as it is, never mind faster than that.
Nadal has won the career Grand Slam. Try again.

A load of claycourt tourneys wouldn't mean more success outside of clay, would it?
It would mean more ranking points, and thus Nadal would "survive" in the 1990s.

And, why talking about clay at all, when the conversation is about the faster conditions of the 80ies and the 90ies?
Because believe it or not, clay-court tennis did exist in the 1980s and 1990s and not just serve and volley fests.

Going deliberately off-topic with your inane ****ish babble, are you?
Not at all.
 

dimeaxe

Semi-Pro
Becker is right but lucky for nadal and nole that there is no carpet and that most all the HC's have slowed down. Take a fast court like cincy and its no wonder neither of the two have won it. Although Djokovic has gotten to the final 4 times he hasnt won a set.
Dubai is faster than Cincy, and look what happened to Roger last years.It's just myth that he plays great in faster conditions.
 

RF20Lennon

Legend
Nadal has won the career Grand Slam. Try again.



It would mean more ranking points, and thus Nadal would "survive" in the 1990s.



Because believe it or not, clay-court tennis did exist in the 1980s and 1990s and not just serve and volley fests.



Not at all.
I agree with what you said Mustard but Nadal hasnt been able to adapt to quick courts. The USO and AO are not fast courts
 

Arsnlrob

Rookie
Becker would be destroyed by Novak in any conditions, he's not really the smartest man in the world, better for him to shut up.
Agreed. I'd love to see Becker (in his little white short-shorts) get continually passed down the line by No1e, who is considered by most experts as the best returner in the game today. Becker would not have a chance no matter what the surface was.
 

Mustard

Talk Tennis Guru
I agree with what you said Mustard but Nadal hasnt been able to adapt to quick courts. The USO and AO are not fast courts
The US Open is a fast hardcourt. Not Dubai or Cincinnati fast, but it is a fast hardcourt. No hardcourt was ever near the speed of carpet courts, though, nor did they have the quickness and lowish bounces of the old Wimbledon grass. Yet some people seem to think that hardcourts should be lightning fast. Odd.
 

dimeaxe

Semi-Pro
Roger is hypocrite.He suggested faster courts, but why he suggested carpet surface to be removed from tour seven or eight years ago???He was one of the players who said it's not safe for players to play on that.After 17 gs and many other records, he suggests fast stuff, very smart Roger, very smart...
 
Last edited:

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
Nadal has won the career Grand Slam. Try again..
In conditions and speeds, that favour exactly his style and that is the whole point in what Becker said.

Try again.

It would mean more ranking points, and thus Nadal would have had a good career in the 1990s.
No, because if he chooses to play clay tourneys elsewhere he should give up points elsewhere. That and the points and titles from the Majors, he (and Djokovic) wouldn't have won, would hardly make for more successful career. Again, that is the whole point in what Becker said.

Are you sure, that you understand English?

Because believe it or not, clay-court tennis did exist in the 1980s and 1990s and not just serve and volley fests.
And that is completely irrelevant in this discussion.

The only reason, that I can think of, for doing that, is to derail the thread from the main topic.

Not at all.
You keep doing that. I think that you are your best enemy, when you lead conversations like that.

The US Open is a fast hardcourt. Not Dubai or Cincinnati fast, but it is a fast hardcourt. No hardcourt was ever near the speed of carpet courts, though, nor did they have the quickness and lowish bounces of the old Wimbledon grass. Yet some people seem to think that hardcourts should be lightning fast. Odd.
US Open was much faster than it has been for the past several years. And who said, that the speed of the HC should be as fast as carpet? You are making absurd assumptions, just to refute them and thus "prove" your point. Pathetic.

US Open was easily as fast as Cincinnati years back. Tell us how successful Nadal is in Cincinnati?

Why is odd for US Open to be fast? Odd
 
Last edited:

RF20Lennon

Legend
The US Open is a fast court. Not Dubai or Cincinnati fast, but it is a fast hardcourt. No hardcourt was ever near the speed of carpet courts, though, nor did they have the quickness and lowish bounces of the old Wimbledon grass.
exactly what i meant. Fed played on carpet early on in his career I think.
 

dimeaxe

Semi-Pro
UH....he won dubai this year :D and also in Cincy the ball travels much faster due to the weather conditions
For Novak, it's not fast surface/conditions that bothers him in Cinci.It's hot weather.I think after four matches, playing every day, he's dead in finals even though he cope with it much better these days.
 
Last edited:

firepanda

Professional
Brace yourself. Couch warriors here at TT are way more qualified about this subject than silly Boris Becker. Vamos.
Oh, aren't we sarcastic today?

Well I'm going to do just that. Nadal and Djokovic aren't good on fast surfaces, but they aren't dismal either.

Nadal would have destroyed the clay scene as he does now. No reason to think anything has changed. He wouldn't win Wimbledon, because he couldn't get past the likes of Ivanisevic. However, there's no reason to think he'd bomb out completely. He's an acceptable volleyer and has fantastic instincts. He also happens to be the passer. Ever. He could potentially become one of the best volleyers if he adapted his style to the game. Likewise, he can hold his own on the hard courts. He never wins Cincy and WTF, but he doesn't exactly lose first round, does he? No reason that would change.

Djokovic has just won WTF. He's still one of the best hard-courters in the game, no matter what era. He would fare worse than Nadal, who has the game to beat the S/V types, but there is no denying his greatness. :)
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
Well, this isn't exactly groundbreaking news, but I will say in favour of Nadal and Djokovic, that they are simply products of the courts today IMO. It seems strange to say, but I think they'd be completely different players had they played in the 80's or 90's. If they knew they needed to succeed on fast courts, they'd play completely differently than what they do now on comparitively slow ones. Their styles succeed in todays game which is all that really matters. Besides that, Nadal would still have 7 RG titles for sure, and he'd probably still have his Aussie title, and Djokovic would probably still have his 3 Aussie titles.

As for Federer, yes there are players who have better serves, and/or vollies, but Federer's played a fair bit of S&V, and he's amazing when it comes to returning big serves especially in his prime, so he'd survive, and he'd probably still lead in GS count IMHO.
 

Mustard

Talk Tennis Guru
In conditions and speeds, that favour exactly his style and that is the whole point in what Becker said.

Try again.
The thread title says that Nadal and Djokovic wouldn't have survived in the 1980s and 1990s. I think it's clear that Nadal could have survived in these decades.

No, because if he chooses to play clay tourneys elsewhere he should give up points elsewhere. That and the points and titles from the Majors, he (and Djokovic) wouldn't have won, would hardly make for more successful career. Again, that is the whole point in what Becker said.
The thread title says "wouldn't survive", not "wouldn't be as successful".

And that is completely irrelevant in this discussion.
Thread title: Nadal and Djokovic would not have survived the 80's and 90's - Becker

There were clay-court tournaments galore in these decades, where serve and volley was a lot more scarce.

Conclusion: Relevant to this discussion.
 
Last edited:

sonicare

Hall of Fame
Mustad peddling his BS as usual.

The only 2 players from the open era who IMO would have no problems adapting to any court/conditions are borg and federer.
 
Last edited:

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
The thread title says that Nadal and Djokovic wouldn't have survived in the 1980s and 1990s. I think it's clear that Nadal could have survived in these decades.
The thread title says "wouldn't survive", not "wouldn't be as successful".
Thread title: Nadal and Djokovic would not have survived the 80's and 90's - Becker
There were clay-court tournaments galore in these decades, where serve and volley was a lot more scarce.
Conclusion: Relevant to this discussion.
You are amusing.

The whole point of asking you, whether you understand, what Becker said , is that it should not be taken literally.

I seriously doubt, that Becker thought, that Nadal wouldn't be as successful on clay, no matter in what era. That leaves us with the surfaces outside of clay, and, since you seem to not understand a word from what he meant, he was talking about the fast and ultrafast surfaces. That is the whole point of comparing now and then, since now there are plenty of slow and medium paced HC.

Really, what exactly did you understand and argue about?
 

Mustard

Talk Tennis Guru
US Open was much faster than it has been for the past several years. And who said, that the speed of the HC should be as fast as carpet? You are making absurd assumptions, just to refute them and thus "prove" your point. Pathetic.
There you go putting words in my mouth again. I said that some people were saying that hardcourts should be speeded up, when the main reason for the court speeds going down on the tour is the new racquet and string technology, combined with the slow fazing out of carpet courts from 1997-2007, and the change of Wimbledon grass to 100% Rye in September 2001. 2002 Wimbledon was the slowest Wimbledon I've ever seen. No other Wimbledon comes close to being as slow, either before or since.

If people want faster conditions, then bringing back carpet courts is the obvious answer. Going on about hardcourts needing to be speeded up is odd.

US Open was easily as fast as Cincinnati years back. Tell us how successful Nadal is in Cincinnati?

Why is odd for US Open to be fast? Odd
Cincinnati is the fastest North American hardcourt on tour, and I've never thought that the US Open was as fast as Cincinnati. I've tried to tell you about the vital technological factor involved in the last 10-15 years, making it easier to hit a lot of hard spin, which makes the surfaces look slower than the older days, but you weren't having it.
 
Last edited:

Mustard

Talk Tennis Guru
Mustad peddling his BS as usual.

The only 2 players from the open era who IMO would have no problems adapting to any court/conditions are borg and federer.
And you know this, how? Do you have a ****IS or DeLorean as well? It's funny how many seem to be lying around for TT members to use :)
 

RF20Lennon

Legend
For Novak, it's not fast surface/conditions that bothers him in Cinci.It's hot weather.I think after four matches, playing every day, he's dead in finals even though he cope with it much better these days.
I lived in Dubai for a while its waaaaaaaaay hotter than cincy but you cant blame that for the loss last year to Murray. How about 2008 and 2009 when the final was played in the evening??
 

Huanita99

Rookie
not again with this court ****. let me try to explain few things. Novak won on grass, clay, fast HC (Dubai) mediumd/slow HC and he would win on Mars too. that's because he is that good. hope this helps. :)
 

Mustard

Talk Tennis Guru
You are amusing.

The whole point of asking you, whether you understand, what Becker said , is that it should not be taken literally.

I seriously doubt, that Becker thought, that Nadal wouldn't be as successful on clay, no matter in what era. That leaves us with the surfaces outside of clay, and, since you seem to not understand a word from what he meant, he was talking about the fast and ultrafast surfaces. That is the whole point of comparing now and then, since now there are plenty of slow and medium paced HC.

Really, what exactly did you understand and argue about?
I understand what Becker was saying. The point is, even if you were rubbish at dealing with serve and volley players in the 1980s and 1990s, you could make a strong career on tour. Look at Thomas Muster, and he did it after severed ligaments in his knee.
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
. I said that some people were saying that hardcourts should be speeded up, when the main reason for the court speeds going down on the tour is the slow fazing out of carpet courts from 1997-2007.
This bolded statement is ridiculous. We are not talking about lower AVERAGE speed of the courts on Tour. We are talking about the slowing of the speeds of the surfaces, which were not known to be as they are now (US Open being one of them, AO being one of them etc).

How exactly the extinction of carpet is directly related to the slowing of US Open or AO?


... and the change of Wimbledon grass to 100% Rye in September 2001. 2002 Wimbledon was the slowest Wimbledon I've ever seen. No other Wimbledon comes close to being as slow, either before or since.
What does the speed of Wimbledon in 2002 have to do with this discussion? The only relevance, it has, is to mark the beginning of the slowing of grass at Wimbledon. It is a fact, that the grass at Wimbledon has been slowed down sigificantly and is slow compared to the grass in the 80ies and the 90ies there.

... Going on about hardcourts needing to be speeded up is odd.
It is odd , that people ask for the original speed of US Open?

:roll:



Cincinnati is the fastest North American hardcourt on tour, and I've never thought that the US Open was as fast as Cincinnati.
Way back both tourneys were about the same speed (give or take).

I've tried to tell you about the vital technological factor involved in the last 10-15 years, making it easier to hit a lot of hard spin, which makes the surfaces look slower than the older days, but you weren't having it.
The power and the spin, that the modern :roll: rackets and strings generate make the surfaces look slower than they really are?

You are outdoing yourself by the minute.
 
Last edited:
Top