@Flash O'Groove
I think the captain is a thorough believer in the evolution of the game and so favours players from more recent generations, with a few exceptions.
This is it exactly! For the most part, I tend to think that the "best" strokes, and more "athletic" players are going to be in the most recent generation -- and this is a trend that holds true in ALL sports (including tennis). Roger Federer in his prime is the greatest player of all time, and Rafael Nadal is the second greatest player of all time. Both of them are in the current generation, still playing, and could possibly be overtaken by Novak Djokovic in the next 6 or 7 years. Rod Laver, Jimmy Conners, Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe, and Ivan Lendl were outstanding players in their eras, but would be crushed if they played in the current era against Federer, Nadal or Djokovic! The only previously great champions that could even challenge them are Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi in their prime. And I still think BOTH of them would ultimately have losing records to the current "best". Similarly, if you take Margaret Court, Billie Jean King, Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova, and Steffi Graf in their physical prime, and put them in 2015, Serena Williams would have as dominant a record against all of them as she does against Sharapova, Azarenka, Radwanska, and Wozniacki. Only Graf (again, closest to the Serena generation) would be able to challenge Serena on occasion. She had the speed and power (off the forehand) that is equivalent to the top players today. But she also had a backhand weakness that Serena could exploit.
The only area of the game where I think players have actually devolved is the volley. Volleying isn't the art today that it used to be. Most of the good volleyers in today's game are doubles specialists (Leander Paes, The Bryan Bros, Hingis/Mirza, etc). In singles, you can count the number of really good volleyers left on one hand. Llodra, Stepenek, Federer, and maybe Tsonga? Radwanska, Venus Williams, and Roberta Vinci are the only women I can think of with a really good volley. But the majority of players in both the men's and women's game are mediocre to terrible in their net game compared to players in past generations. One, because of the nature of the game nowadays, it's more difficult for a player to serve and volley as effectively against the great returners of this generation. Two, the surfaces are more homogenized (slower), and the ball bounces high even on grass (right into a returner's strike zone). So a serve and volley player today is going to get passed more easily than they could back in the 70s - 90s. So much of the skill and touch at net has been lost and has become almost a relic of the past because that style of play isn't taught anymore.
The first time a baseline player won Wimbledon in the Open Era was when Andre Agassi won it in 1992. Before that, the tournament had been dominated by serve and volleyers. And the ONLY reason Agassi won it is because he had a return of serve (and followed it up with passing shots) that were capable of neutralizing the primary weapons of the players who typically dominated Wimbledon. It took ten more years before the next baseliner, Lleyton Hewitt (another outstanding returner) could win the tournament. Flash forward to today the situation has completely reversed. Baseliners (Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, and Federer) dominate Wimbledon. Yes Federer is more of an "all-court player", but he tends to stay back more today than when he beat Pete Sampras in 2001 (when he was also a serve and volley player). But in every other aspect of the game (serves, returns, forehands, backhands, speed, power, athleticism, etc) the game continually evolves, and the "best" players tend to advance with the evolution of the game.