Physical comparison across eras will end half the ongoing debates

Start da Game

Hall of Fame
lately there have been many assumptions in several threads as to how players from the past would blast the current players off the court if they are given the modern equipment........well lets see how that fares........

we have borg, laver, kuerten and ferrero for this discussion today against the biggest challenge ever in tennis history - beating rafa on clay.........lets give them all the latest babolat aero pure drive or any other raquet of their choice, what is your feeling about their prospects against rafa on the surface........imo this is the order in which i give them chances of beating rafa at roland garros........

kuerten - most
ferrero - distant second
borg - close third
laver - least chance

the reasons are pretty straightforward........i mean look at kuerten and ferrero, both taller than rafa with excellent backhands........coming to borg, great athlete but is he really physical enough to overpower rafa with the latest raquets? laver might achieve a few exhibition shots and nothing else........no disrespect meant but even peak fed got destroyed 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 so i am not counting much on laver due to physical limitations........

examine the only two losses rafa encountered at roland garros without getting into details about his physical or mental shape in those defeats - both soderling and djokovic taller than him, strongly built.......soderling hammered the ball........needless to discuss what djoko did........

do you really feel we would see such contests between laver/borg against rafa? i don't think so........their physique allowed them to be great in wooden raquet era, but i have my reservations about them with modern raquets.........

not disrespecting any of the legends but this question always intrigued me........you got to feel for players like michael chang, david ferrer........what they could have achieved in an era of wooden racquets can serve as a hint to answering these questions........ideal height in tennis has always been six one to six four........
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
Though Laver obviously won the FO twice, he has said he never felt that comfortable on clay and it was by far his least favorite surface. I'm not sure why he's in the mix. Laver was a superlative player but never a superlative clay player. Why not substitute Lendl, Wilander (three FO's each) or clay beast Vilas? Hell, how about Thomas Muster?
 

ibbi

Legend
Why is Ferrero in this discussion?? o_O Of all the people to pick! He played Nadal many times when he was still in his 20s, not some failing old man. How'd that work out for him? He also wasn't taller than Nadal. The guy was nicknamed the Mosquito for a reason. Blisters were a bigger threat to Nadal on clay than Juan Carlos was. God bless 'im.
 
Top