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

[Tennusdude]

Well I started playing tennis at the age of 44, so if you are better than me that is not a very big deal. I never claimed to have a wondrous usta career, I was just showing my record to prove your buddy dramaqueen wrong.

The league I play in the summer is a 4.5 league, but this league is a half level higher than what it should be ranked so I classify it at 4.0. Since I won the fall season I will have to move up to this leagues 5.0 which is the highest level it has, which again would be more like a 4.5 level.

The usta flex winter league I am in is a weak 4.0 level and there is no 4.5 singles league. So your assessment of my level is pretty accurate, I did not know that this winter league was this weak and I will not be playing in it the next season.

I will just use the rest of the indoor season to practice for next springs season. I will be playing strong 4.0 to 4.5 players in pick up matches and believe me I will lose against a lot of these guys. I am by no means afraid of losing, I play mostly against better players than me.

As far as stringing goes It does not take 30 years to become a good stringer, not even close to that. I have been string for 11 years and after a few months I was a decent stringer and after a few years anyone can be come a very good stringer.

I really don't care who you have strung for or how long you have been stringing. When you say that this stringing in the 30's is the way to go but yet very few pro players use that low of tension and most are in the mid 50's it does not make much sense.

I know that the low tension poly craze is popular now and if players can have success with the low tension then great. It will definitely feel better and be easier on the arm. I have tried tensions from 34-72 lbs. with poly and many other strings and everything in between.

And a lot of it depends on the player, the racket, and the strings. I use to use gut mains with poly crosses at 48+52 lbs. and with the low powered racket I was using at that time and with the swing I was using it worked fine. But that is not the norm.

All the players I know agree that the higher the tension the better control there is and the lower the tension the more power. I always thought this was common knowledge. That does not mean that a player cannot use lower tension and have control, but on average there is better control at higher tensions.

So I hope you like my counterattack.

Yes, your counterattack was very well though out and done very respectfully. Although I think you misread me when it comes to low tensions. I actually was trying to say that the majority of tennis players dont use very low tensions but it is my preference and has been for years. I actually dont think most tennis players will ever embrace low tensions. You need to have patience to develop the skills needed to harness the extra power and higher trajectory the ball takes after leaving your string bed. Even a professional tennis play would need to make more than just a minor adjustment to their swing in order to take advantage of very low string tensions, IMHO.

 

[Laurie]

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.

I certainly remember rallies on clay as gruelling but I certainly don't recall them as engrossing. For me personally, I started to get into clay a lot more when Gustavo Kuerten turned in 1997 and beyond. I thought he made clay tennis interesting because he liked to go for winners, hit bigger serves and was quite good around the net. He played tennis on clay like he would on hardcourts which I liked. Now I really like clay tennis a lot and even played on clay over the weekend. Back in the early 1990s I wasn't a clay fan as much.

 

[mistik]

We should all end the myth that base liners werent winning in 80s and 90s.Both Nadal and Djokovic more powerful and complete players than the likes of Borg, Wilander and Agassi.

 

[Laurie]

Djokovic would have done very well back in the 1990s. I've seen a player (Djokovic) who has adapted his game to the slowing of the conditions. He used to hit a lot more aces than he does now about 4 to 5 years ago. He is also very good at the return and passing shot due to his movement. Just because someone is serve and volleying doesn't mean they will win, they also have to have something extra to match the counterpunch.

I see Djokovic doing better as well or better than Hewitt during this period.

Nadal is a bit harder to read because he makes a lot of demands on surfaces and his body, he likes the conditions to be in his favour. In the 1990s, conditions were so varied so it would have been difficult to get the conditions he likes everywhere and of course there would have been much more indoor carpet, I'm not sure about Nadal.

On indoor carpet, I see Djokovic excelling on this, remember, guys like Djokovic like fast surfaces where they can counterpunch and make things happen.

 

[Tennusdude]

We should all end the myth that base liners werent winning in 80s and 90s.Both Nadal and Djokovic more powerful and complete players than the likes of Borg, Wilander and Agassi.

You are right they were definitely winning, but they were not winning against Pete Sampras! Actually I believe that only the few players who were were able to compile a winning record against Sampras and they were either serve and volleyers or decent net players in their own right.

Richard Krajicek 6-4

Marat Safin 4-3

Michael Stitch 5-4


I am not a Sampras fan I must respect his accomplishments

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Why wouldn't Djokovic do well in the 90s era? He's essentially a much better version of Lleyton Hewitt.

 

[Tennusdude]

Although Sergi Bruguera has a winning record against Sampras. 2 out his 3 victories over Sampras came on clay. Not sure about what surface most of Hewitts wins came against Sampras but he also had a winning record. I know there are other players who had winning records against Sampras but those players only has one meeting with Sampras.

 

[5555]

Perhaps Becker isn't talking about strokes or technique at all, rather that Djokovic and, to a greater extent, Nadal don't have an attack-minded tennis mindset

Federer regards Djokovic as a natural attacker http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...efeats-andy-murray-faces-djokovic-in-atp.html

 

[FlamEnemY]

People seem to forget that despite his playing style Djokovic is actually an offensive player by nature, just watch him in 2007.

 

[helloworld]

Becker is just a Sampras favorite lap dog, especially at Wimbledon. :lol:

 

[DRII]

The lack of depth in 'Federer's era' represents a greater distinction from the 80's and 90's than the homogenization of surfaces (generally higher/firmer bouncing) of today. Although both criteria compliment one another.

Also poly strings represent another significant change...

 

[DRII]

Federer regards Djokovic as a natural attacker http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...efeats-andy-murray-faces-djokovic-in-atp.html

Nole is definitely not a 'natural attacker'.

Defense makes up the bulk of his game. He's agressive against Federer because he has to be, much like Murray is aggressive against Nadal...

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Nole is definitely not a 'natural attacker'.

Defense makes up the bulk of his game. He's agressive against Federer because he has to be, much like Murray is aggressive against Nadal...

Compare Djokovic from 2007/2008 to now and it's evident he's changed his game to keep up with the slower courts. He was far more aggressive back then than now.

 

[Russeljones]

People seem to forget that despite his playing style Djokovic IS actually an offensive player by nature, just watch him in 2007.

He is what? lol

 

[NLBwell]

Clay in the 80s and 90s was generally slower, often much slower, than it is today. Nadal would be pretty much unbeatable then as he is now. He would certainly have a lot of hard court wins and be a force to be reckoned with. Carpet might be tougher, but Kuerten won some on carpet, I believe. Pre-2000 Wimbledon grass, probably wouldn't do very well unless he became much more of a SV player like Borg and Lendl did. Given his willingness to constantly improve his game, I wouldn't count him out.

One thing that should be said is that is was much harder to consistently win in the SV era, because the ease of winning service games made it much easier to keep the matches close. One or two lucky breaks, and the #1 seed would be out of the tournament.

 

[Huanita99]

He is what? lol

it's true tho. Novak was a natural killer back in 2007/08 if you happened to watch tennis at that time (supper aggressive). then racquet change happened, Todd Martin happened , serve change motion happened, 2 'completely' wasted years in his career...

so, before you post your stuff, get the facts right bud

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

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

Your far-reaching theory is not fact, as he did not play in both eras.

 

[Huanita99]

and when I hear 'Sexy Roger' I want to puke, what the hell is sexy, his huge ugly nose?

 

[TMF]

Why wouldn't Djokovic do well in the 90s era? He's essentially a much better version of Lleyton Hewitt.

Hewitt was able to beat the serve/volley players of the 90s. With him and all the baseliners today would do just fine, especially Federer who could do better. Anyway, there were great baseliners like Agassi, Wilander, Lendl, Courier in the 80s/90s, and all of these guys have said today's players are faster, stronger, better, more athletic, etc. However, the better question is how would a serve/volley players from the 80s/90s fare in today's conditions when no serve/volley players have ever reach a slam final in the past 10 years.

 

[TMF]

Your far-reaching theory is not fact, as he did not play in both eras.

It's not a fact but it's closer to reality.

 

[TMF]

Guess who was reported for flaming.


Yep.

People are allow to disagree. Don't take it personal.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

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.

Sound point. Federer has been the recipient of a drastically changed game where legions of one-dimensional baseliners do not exactly force him to change his gameplan, or face anyone capable of playing his own game better than he can, as most come at him in the same dreary, expected fashion. Only Nadal truly had his number.

In Becker's era, not only would he have the powerful S&V players to deal with, but a host of top baseliners, making the idea of his winning anything close to his current number something along the lines of fantasy.

 

[helloworld]

Why wouldn't Djokovic do well in the 90s era? He's essentially a much better version of Lleyton Hewitt.

Wait, Hewitt was a 90s era?? He was still in his early teen in the 90s... Hewitt didn't become a force until 2001 when most of the 90s players have gotten old or way past their primes already. Only 33 years old Agassi was still motivated enough to keep up with Hewitt, and the old man did own Hewitt a few times despite his much older age. Hewitt is certainly not a good example of a successful 90s baseliner. His peak was in 2001-2002, which is in the 2000s era.

 

[Huanita99]

again, some of you guys are so naive. Djokovic and Nadal would destroy them all because they are so much more athletic. no chance in hell they would lose to lilkes of Sampras, Agassi, Edberg, whoever..

 

[FlamEnemY]

He is what? lol

I'm sorry, did I mess up the English tenses?

 

[Laurie]

Although Sergi Bruguera has a winning record against Sampras. 2 out his 3 victories over Sampras came on clay. Not sure about what surface most of Hewitts wins came against Sampras but he also had a winning record. I know there are other players who had winning records against Sampras but those players only has one meeting with Sampras.

Sampras v Hewitt was interesting because their rivalry reflected their age difference somewhat. Sampras won the 4 of their first 5 meetings between 1999 and 2000, except the 2000 Queens final where Hewitt sprung a surprise. Then in 2001 and 2002 when Sampras was struggling, Hewitt capitalised to win the next four meetings including the 2001 US Open final when as the Sky commentators put it "Sampras seemed to run out of steam". Also, between 2001 and 2002, Sampras' insistence on serve volley on both serves on hardcourts played into Hewitt's hands so a tactical error there, or he didn't fancy running around with a 20 year old :lol:.

Anyway, Sampras actually laid the blueprint for Federer on how to beat Hewitt; when Sampras still had energy off the ground the tactic was to overpower Hewitt as he felt Hewitt had no weapons off the ground. This was why Hewiit was such a fantastic counterpuncher on faster surfaces and not so good on slower surfaces.

Here's a very good example of the tactics pre 2001, this is the 2000 Miami semifinal, always a medium paced hardcourt, I uploaded this to youtube back in 2009.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnUZtuOGKUA

 

[zagor]

Sound point. Federer has been the recipient of a drastically changed game where legions of one-dimensional baseliners do not exactly force him to change his gameplan, or face anyone capable of playing his own game better than he can, as most come at him in the same dreary, expected fashion.

More variety in playing styles doesn't automatically mean less success for Fed, it's possible he would have adapted just fine to various different conditions/playing styles and would have even welcomed faster surfaces/lighter balls where as he aged he could have relied more on his serve+FH combo instead of having to grind it out with 5-6 years younger players.

Regarding players capable of playing Fed's own game better than him, who knows how Fed's game would have looked like in different conditions? The guy won his first slam playing a lot of serve and volley and most people (tennis players, coaches, analysts, fans etc.) believe he has the overall package to dominate any era (potentially of course).

Only Nadal truly had his number.

So unless you have Fed's number (lead the H2H) you can't be considered as his worthy opposition?

In Becker's era, not only would he have the powerful S&V players to deal with, but a host of top baseliners, making the idea of his winning anything close to his current number something along the lines of fantasy.

Actually, you suggesting that he wouldn't achieve anything close to his current number is just as much fantasy/pure speculation.

The only fact here is Fed won 16 slams (among the host of other accomplishments), of course the same goes for Nadal and Novak.

 

[zagor]

Then in 2001 and 2002 when Sampras was struggling, Hewitt capitalised to win the next four meetings including the 2001 US Open final when as the Sky commentators put it "Sampras seemed to run out of steam".

Just like Sampras capitalised on Hewitt being a teenager when he won their 4 out of 5 meetings ?

Also, between 2001 and 2002, Sampras' insistence on serve volley on both serves on hardcourts played into Hewitt's hands so a tactical error there, or he didn't fancy running around with a 20 year old :lol:.

Have to agree with that, though in general I think Sampras was wrong to go all full serve and volley playing style (not just against Hewitt specifically), that is not how he achieved most success in his career.

Anyway, Sampras actually laid the blueprint for Federer on how to beat Hewitt; when Sampras still had energy off the ground the tactic was to overpower Hewitt as he felt Hewitt had no weapons off the ground. This was why Hewiit was such a fantastic counterpuncher on faster surfaces and not so good on slower surfaces.

Fed didn't really need a blueprint on how to beat Hewitt (he was hardly the only player Fed had trouble with at that time, there was Nalbandian, Henman, older Agassi etc.), when he matured mentally as a player, improved his fitness etc. beating Hewitt came naturally to Fed, he always had more weapons against Hewitt but was a major headcase and wasn't fit enough to keep up with Lleyton.

I do agree with Hewitt's game being much more effective on faster surfaces though (and playing serve and volleyers, he liked having a target), he's the one player that got hurt the most with slowed down conditions IMO.

Here's a very good example of the tactics pre 2001, this is the 2000 Miami semifinal, always a medium paced hardcourt, I uploaded this to youtube back in 2009.

I thought Miami was always considered to be quite slow for a HC? I think medium paced is something like Canada masters.

 

[zagor]

BTW. I prefer this match in the same tourney (2000 Miami) that you have in your clips:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29fQSwUmoVc&feature=plcp

There's also the full match here (I recently watched it):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuHB1xRBHiE

 

[tlm]

Yes, your counterattack was very well though out and done very respectfully. Although I think you misread me when it comes to low tensions. I actually was trying to say that the majority of tennis players dont use very low tensions but it is my preference and has been for years. I actually dont think most tennis players will ever embrace low tensions. You need to have patience to develop the skills needed to harness the extra power and higher trajectory the ball takes after leaving your string bed. Even a professional tennis play would need to make more than just a minor adjustment to their swing in order to take advantage of very low string tensions, IMHO.

Now this makes good sense and I agree, low tension can be used but it takes some adjusting to. And for some players it will just not work.

 

[lendlmac]

True... Nadal and Joker's game was more suited for the mid to late 90's....


Federer's game woudl be toned down to like Stefan Edberg's game, or Tim Mayotte..... But Lendl ate up the Serve and Volliers for breakfast... LOL

 

[sureshs]

Becker/Nadal:

No. of Slams: 6/11
No. of Olympics medals: 0/1
Career Slam: No/Yes
Fed fart: Yes/No

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Becker/Nadal:

No. of Slams: 6/11
No. of Olympics medals: 0/1
Career Slam: No/Yes
Fed fart: Yes/No

Masters Cup: 3/0

 

[sureshs]

Masters Cup: 3/0

Meaningless. Becker does not even have a Career Slam which means he is not even fit to be talked about in the same sentence as Nadal. Another has-been who thinks that the girls are still going after his short-shorts and pissed off that a guy with a 1-handed backhand like him (Federer) has a losing H2H against Nadal.

 

[lendlmac]

After careful research in tothe career of Federer.. Federers' game is better more suited to the 90's style of play, where baseline tennis was overtaking serve and volley tennis of the 80's... Federer and nadal and Djokovic woudl have THIRVED in the 90's.

90's Tennis

Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Chang, Wheaton, Martin and Ivanisevic, Berasetugi, Brugera, Muster, Kaflenkov, Stich, Kriajeck, Enquist, Rios, Henman, Ferriera, Rusedski, Rafter, Kucera, Rosset, Medvedev, Woodbridge, Phillpousis


80's Tennis

Federer, Nadal and Djokovic would have been burried and burned by the overwhelmingly fast , slick courts and fast serve and volley tennis of this Golden Era of Tennis....I do not se Federer "hanging with the Big Boys of the 80's:

Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Mecir, Gerulitis, Becker, Edberg, Gilbert, Forget, Noah, Cash, Jarryd, Curren, Krickstein, Mayotte, Leconte, Vilas, Clerc, Pernfors

 

[lendlmac]

Meaningless. Becker does not even have a Career Slam which means he is not even fit to be talked about in the same sentence as Nadal. Another has-been who thinks that the girls are still going after his short-shorts and pissed off that a guy with a 1-handed backhand like him (Federer) has a losing H2H against Nadal.

Federer, Nadal nor Djokovic has NEVER played the fast courts of the 80's..as they still do not exisit in to 2000 and 2012's.... So today's KIDS could not HANG in the 80's fast courts as EVERY surface was at least twice as fast, indoors, clay, grass, hard court, etc.... the KIDS and Federer today do NOT know what fast surfaces are today as the 80's they were the FASTEST they've ever been and have never gone back to that to this day... all with natural gut...no Luxillon, or Poly blends etc... LOL

 

[timnz]

Career slam

Meaningless. Becker does not even have a Career Slam which means he is not even fit to be talked about in the same sentence as Nadal. Another has-been who thinks that the girls are still going after his short-shorts and pissed off that a guy with a 1-handed backhand like him (Federer) has a losing H2H against Nadal.

I don't think people really appreciate how much easier the career slam has become in recent years. Still a fine achievement yes, but not a fraction as hard as it was pre-2002. It is highly likely that Nadal wouldn't have won Wimbledon once given pre-2002 conditions. Also in the 80s players played on 4 surfaces (remember how important indoor carpet was then?) whereas players now only play on 3. Nadal would struggle greatly on indoor carpet and also on grass.

 

[dimeaxe]

Lendlmac, please shut up, you know nothing about tennis.

 

[sureshs]

I don't think people really appreciate how much easier the career slam has become in recent years. Still a fine achievement yes, but not a fraction as hard as it was pre-2002. It is highly likely that Nadal wouldn't have won Wimbledon once given pre-2002 conditions. Also in the 80s players played on 4 surfaces (remember how important indoor carpet was then?) whereas players now only play on 3. Nadal would struggle greatly on indoor carpet and also on grass.

How can someone who has beaten Federer in Wimbledon "struggle" on grass?

 

[timnz]

The key issue is when

How can someone who has beaten Federer in Wimbledon "struggle" on grass?

Please re-read the whole of the paragraph I wrote. I said that he would struggle on pre-2002 Wimbledon Grass. The surface has been radically changed since then. It used to be a fast surface, now it is a medium speed surface. Nadal would struggle on pre-2002 Wimbledon grass.

 

[abmk]

Why wouldn't Djokovic do well in the 90s era? He's essentially a much better version of Lleyton Hewitt.

in some ways yes, but in some ways no. His passing ability is nowhere close and I don't think his returning vs SnVers is that good compared to Lleyton .....

 

[lendlmac]

Lendlmac, please shut up, you know nothing about tennis.

Actually i do know a lot more than you first hand. I know tennis history and tennis in the 80's.

After careful research in tothe career of Federer.. Federers' game is better more suited to the 90's style of play, where baseline tennis was overtaking serve and volley tennis of the 80's... Federer and nadal and Djokovic woudl have THIRVED in the 90's.

90's Tennis

Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Chang, Wheaton, Martin and Ivanisevic, Berasetugi, Brugera, Muster, Kaflenkov, Stich, Kriajeck, Enquist, Rios, Henman, Ferriera, Rusedski, Rafter, Kucera, Rosset, Medvedev, Woodbridge, Phillpousis


80's Tennis

Federer, Nadal and Djokovic would have been burried and burned by the overwhelmingly fast , slick courts and fast serve and volley tennis of this Golden Era of Tennis....I do not se Federer "hanging with the Big Boys of the 80's:

Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Mecir, Gerulitis, Becker, Edberg, Gilbert, Forget, Noah, Cash, Jarryd, Curren, Krickstein, Mayotte, Leconte, Vilas, Clerc, Pernfors

 

[helloworld]

Actually i do know a lot more than you first hand. I know tennis history and tennis in the 80's.

After careful research in tothe career of Federer.. Federers' game is better more suited to the 90's style of play, where baseline tennis was overtaking serve and volley tennis of the 80's... Federer and nadal and Djokovic woudl have THIRVED in the 90's.

90's Tennis

Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Chang, Wheaton, Martin and Ivanisevic, Berasetugi, Brugera, Muster, Kaflenkov, Stich, Kriajeck, Enquist, Rios, Henman, Ferriera, Rusedski, Rafter, Kucera, Rosset, Medvedev, Woodbridge, Phillpousis


80's Tennis

Federer, Nadal and Djokovic would have been burried and burned by the overwhelmingly fast , slick courts and fast serve and volley tennis of this Golden Era of Tennis....I do not se Federer "hanging with the Big Boys of the 80's:

Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Mecir, Gerulitis, Becker, Edberg, Gilbert, Forget, Noah, Cash, Jarryd, Curren, Krickstein, Mayotte, Leconte, Vilas, Clerc, Pernfors

Borg is the 80s player? He barely plays the 80s. Becker also played in best in the 90s. IMO, Dealing with the likes of Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Becker, Krajicek, Ivanisevic, is definitely tougher than dealing with Clerc, Pernfors, Gilbert, and the likes....

 

[tudwell]

80's Tennis

Federer, Nadal and Djokovic would have been burried and burned by the overwhelmingly fast , slick courts and fast serve and volley tennis of this Golden Era of Tennis....I do not se Federer "hanging with the Big Boys of the 80's:

Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Mecir, Gerulitis, Becker, Edberg, Gilbert, Forget, Noah, Cash, Jarryd, Curren, Krickstein, Mayotte, Leconte, Vilas, Clerc, Pernfors

What are you talking about? Four of the first five names you list are decidedly not serve and volley players. And most players stayed back and rallied from the baseline with great frequency, especially on slower surfaces. I think Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic all could have succeeded in those conditions.

 

[5555]

Nole is definitely not a 'natural attacker'.

Federer's opinion carries far more weight than yours.

 

[helloworld]

Novak in his teenage years was definite definitely a natural attacker. Now that he has matured, his game has become much more balance, and much better IMO.

 

[Clay lover]

They won't be as successful...

Just like Becker won't be as successful in this era...

And the fact is...they play in whatever era they are born into...

I don't know why anybody, be it pros or keyboard warriors, would want to hypothetically take players out of an era and place them somewhere else just to somehow belittle their achievements...

Unless there is some motivation.

 

[DRII]

Federer's opinion carries far more weight than yours.

and...

your point?

Federer can believe what he wants, but Nole is not a natural attacker especially not now!

He plays aggressively against Federer, however his game is a defensive baseliner who can and will go for his shots...

 

[tudwell]

They won't be as successful...

Just like Becker won't be as successful in this era...

I don't know. He's basically a much better version of Tsonga, and Tsonga has been able to stay consistently in the top ten, win a Masters, and make a number of deep runs in slams in this era. Becker, with a better serve, better return, and an infinitely better backhand, would definitely still be able to win slams.

 

[TheFifthSet]

and...

your point?

Federer can believe what he wants, but Nole is not a natural attacker especially not now!

He plays aggressively against Federer, however his game is a defensive baseliner who can and will go for his shots...

Yeah, not now, but he was undeniably an aggressive baseliner back in the day. Watch the '07 Miami QF match versus Nadal.