Today's tennis players who "similar" to those of the past

[Topspin 365]

As a fan of tennis for over 30 years, it's always interesting to watch the evolution of the sport and its players. In particular the playing styles, especially amongst the men. But in someways, they remain same.

In my opinion, these particular players have a similarity in style/technique to their past counterparts, but not all in their achievements:

Djokovic = Agassi
Nadal = Muster
Simon = Borg
Federer = Laver
Thiem = Lendl
Medvedev = Connors
Murray = Wilander
Shapovalov = McEnroe
Schwartzman = Chang
Kyrgios = Becker

And here's article from the past:

How Today's Tennis Stars Compare to Past Greats

Diehard tennis fans love to compare stars to past greats. There are countless ways to analyze data, appraise achievements and wonder how modern players would fare against players of prior generations...

bleacherreport.com

Who do you think are are the kindred spirits of past players from their technique/style?

 

[Olli Jokinen]

Djokovic is more like Lendl or Borg. Agassi had a completely different style than Djokovic – average court coverage, took the ball early, was never as steady. Did other stuff really well, but not much like Dkokovic. The Simon/Borg thing i really dont see either. Both make few unforced errors, but Simon'f forehand is quite flat whereas Borg's had heavy topsin. Borg had a great serve, Simon's is pretty average. Some of the others might work. Shapovalov reminds me much more of Leconte than McEnroe, goes for his shots all the time.

 

[Topspin 365]

Djokovic is more like Lendl or Borg. Agassi had a completely different style than Djokovic – average court coverage, took the ball early, was never as steady. Did other stuff really well, but not much like Dkokovic. The Simon/Borg thing i really dont see either. Both make few unforced errors, but Simon'f forehand is quite flat whereas Borg's had heavy topsin. Borg had a great serve, Simon's is pretty average. Some of the others might work. Shapovalov reminds me much more of Leconte than McEnroe, goes for his shots all the time.

Good points. I mentioned the Djokovic/Agass comparison more for the return of serve. The Shapo/Leconte comparison you made is spot on.

 

[Crazy Finn]

Djokovic = Agassi No. They're kinda different players. The fact that they both are excellent returners and play from the baseline is like saying a Limo, Ambulance and a sedan are the same since they are both vehicles. Rafa almost works better than Djoker here, both grinders. Insert any modern player and it works pretty much as well as Novak. This is surface level analysis, no real depth.
Nadal = Muster Ahhh.. Maybe? Dunno. Nadal is kinda Nadal, no else one really looks like him. Insert any spinny dirtball instead of Muster and it's not really any different. Eh.
Simon = Borg Facepalm.
Federer = Laver Both great all-court players with net game. Ok.
Thiem = Lendl Hmmm..... Other than both having 1HBH, I don't know. Lendl was very fluid and smooth on both wings. Theim looks like he's swinging his FH as hard as he can, pretty much every time. So, not really.
Medvedev = Connors Interesting. I'll buy that.
Murray = Wilander Sure. They're both scrappy counterpunch/baseliners.
Shapovalov = McEnroe Uh no. It's sort of the Theim thing again. Shapo swinging with 95% of his power (Theim's at like 105%) on every shot. Jump backhands. The Leconte is comparison is much better, I don't see Mac at all.
Schwartzman = Chang Basically, they're both being smaller, defensive counterpunchy guys. Eh. Schwartzman's pretty fast, but his play style isn't unique - he looks like most of the ATP, frankly.
Kyrgios = Becker That one is pretty interesting. I'll give you that one.

So, 2 interesting comparisons. 1 Gimme (Fed-Laver). 1 solid. 2 outright facepalms. 4 meh. Overall, 5/10.

 

[Topspin 365]

Djokovic = Agassi No. They're kinda different players. The fact that they both are excellent returners and play from the baseline is like saying a Limo, Ambulance and a sedan are the same since they are both vehicles. Rafa almost works better than Djoker here, both grinders. Insert any modern player and it works pretty much as well as Novak. This is surface level analysis, no real depth.
Nadal = Muster Ahhh.. Maybe? Dunno. Nadal is kinda Nadal, no else one really looks like him. Insert any spinny dirtball instead of Muster and it's not really any different. Eh.
Simon = Borg Facepalm.
Federer = Laver Both great all-court players with net game. Ok.
Thiem = Lendl Hmmm..... Other than both having 1HBH, I don't know. Lendl was very fluid and smooth on both wings. Theim looks like he's swinging his FH as hard as he can, pretty much every time. So, not really.
Medvedev = Connors Interesting. I'll buy that.
Murray = Wilander Sure. They're both scrappy counterpunch/baseliners.
Shapovalov = McEnroe Uh no. It's sort of the Theim thing again. Shapo swinging with 95% of his power (Theim's at like 105%) on every shot. Jump backhands. The Leconte is comparison is much better, I don't see Mac at all.
Schwartzman = Chang Basically, they're both being smaller, defensive counterpunchy guys. Eh. Schwartzman's pretty fast, but his play style isn't unique - he looks like most of the ATP, frankly.
Kyrgios = Becker That one is pretty interesting. I'll give you that one.

So, 2 interesting comparisons. 1 Gimme (Fed-Laver). 1 solid. 2 outright facepalms. 4 meh. Overall, 5/10.

Ha! Good call on most. But interested to see some of your own takes on similarities of players from different generations, Let’s see your comparisons.

 

[Topspin 365]

Djokovic is more like Lendl or Borg. Agassi had a completely different style than Djokovic – average court coverage, took the ball early, was never as steady. Did other stuff really well, but not much like Dkokovic. The Simon/Borg thing i really dont see either. Both make few unforced errors, but Simon'f forehand is quite flat whereas Borg's had heavy topsin. Borg had a great serve, Simon's is pretty average. Some of the others might work. Shapovalov reminds me much more of Leconte than McEnroe, goes for his shots all the time.

So what players from different generations do you feel are similar?

 

[Gary Duane]

As a fan of tennis for over 30 years, it's always interesting to watch the evolution of the sport and its players. In particular the playing styles, especially amongst the men. But in someways, they remain same.

In my opinion, these particular players have a similarity in style/technique to their past counterparts, but not all in their achievements:

Djokovic = Agassi
Nadal = Muster
Simon = Borg
Federer = Laver
Thiem = Lendl
Medvedev = Connors
Murray = Wilander
Shapovalov = McEnroe
Schwartzman = Chang
Kyrgios = Becker

And here's article from the past:

How Today's Tennis Stars Compare to Past Greats

Diehard tennis fans love to compare stars to past greats. There are countless ways to analyze data, appraise achievements and wonder how modern players would fare against players of prior generations...

bleacherreport.com

Who do you think are are the kindred spirits of past players from their technique/style?

First of all, it's strange omission to leave Rosewall out, since Pancho is included. Very strange. For the rest their are some interesting connections, but I think putting all these players into one class is forced.

 

[Topspin 365]

First of all, it's strange omission to leave Rosewall out, since Pancho is included. Very strange. For the rest their are some interesting connections, but I think putting all these players into one class is forced.

Easy to point out from my list, but what is your take on this?

 

[Gary Duane]

Easy to point out from my list, but what is your take on this?

My take is that the people who write these lists have not watched enough tennis from the past. People don't know about Kramer, Pancho, Rosewall, Laver, and they assume these old players could not compete with later players even in the era of wood and gut because they don't realize how old they were. Kramer you can't judge because we never saw him play anyone in the open era, and Panch was born in 1928 and so was 40 by the beginning of the open era. You see people trash Rosewall because he got clobbered by Connors, but Connors was 18 years younger. You don't even expect Fed to win against guys that much younger, and people today are benefiting from modern medicine and training.

I find what Laver could still do against Connors, giving away 14 years, very impressive, then we know what Connors was still doing at age 39 in 1991. If you watch Laver even at around age 30, when he won his grand slam, you see how fast he was and how aggressive. I'd personally group him with Edberg and Sampras as an ultra aggressive net rusher. But if you really know tennis, these ATGs don't quite every look like each other. I've never seen anyone who looks like Connors, Borg or Mac. It seems to me that as we progress in time many players look more similar, but even so to me no one quite looks like the Big 3. You can say Djokovic is typical of the modern game, but when he stetches and does his Gumby/Ultron thing, you just see that and realize no one else has ever stretched like that. Borg on clay just doesn't quite look like anyone else to me, and Fed to me is unique. So linking up similar players this way to me feels pretty weak.

 

[Topspin 365]

My take is that the people who write these lists have not watched enough tennis from the past. People don't know about Kramer, Pancho, Rosewall, Laver, and they assume these old players could not compete with later players even in the era of wood and gut because they don't realize how old they were. Kramer you can't judge because we never saw him play anyone in the open era, and Panch was born in 1928 and so was 40 by the beginning of the open era. You see people trash Rosewall because he got clobbered by Connors, but Connors was 18 years younger. You don't even expect Fed to win against guys that much younger, and people today are benefiting from modern medicine and training.

I find what Laver could still do against Connors, giving away 14 years, very impressive, then we know what Connors was still doing at age 39 in 1991. If you watch Laver even at around age 30, when he won his grand slam, you see how fast he was and how aggressive. I'd personally group him with Edberg and Sampras as an ultra aggressive net rusher. But if you really know tennis, these ATGs don't quite every look like each other. I've never seen anyone who looks like Connors, Borg or Mac. It seems to me that as we progress in time many players look more similar, but even so to me no one quite looks like the Big 3. You can say Djokovic is typical of the modern game, but when he stetches and does his Gumby/Ultron thing, you just see that and realize no one else has ever stretched like that. Borg on clay just doesn't quite look like anyone else to me, and Fed to me is unique. So linking up similar players this way to me feels pretty weak.

I’m only familiar with players that I’ve watched growing up, which were the ones in the modern game. But my list was about players with similar styles from different eras. Wasn’t trying to make the comparisons that literal but it appears you did. And thanks for the history lesson on the earlier greats you mentioned.

 

[Cashman]

So what players from different generations do you feel are similar?

Post-poly tennis is fundamentally different to what has gone before and any comparisons are a bit pointless

You may as well ask which modern players are similar to Ellsworth Vines

 

[Topspin 365]

Post-poly tennis is fundamentally different to what has gone before and any comparisons are a bit pointless

You may as well ask which modern players are similar to Ellsworth Vines

Ha! Weak answer of course!

 

[Cashman]

Ha! Weak answer of course!

There is no point being strong and wrong

 

[Topspin 365]

Ha! Again...

 

[Olli Jokinen]

Easy to point out from my list, but what is your take on this?

My take is that the people who write these lists have not watched enough tennis from the past. People don't know about Kramer, Pancho, Rosewall, Laver, and they assume these old players could not compete with later players even in the era of wood and gut because they don't realize how old they were. Kramer you can't judge because we never saw him play anyone in the open era, and Panch was born in 1928 and so was 40 by the beginning of the open era. You see people trash Rosewall because he got clobbered by Connors, but Connors was 18 years younger. You don't even expect Fed to win against guys that much younger, and people today are benefiting from modern medicine and training.

I find what Laver could still do against Connors, giving away 14 years, very impressive, then we know what Connors was still doing at age 39 in 1991. If you watch Laver even at around age 30, when he won his grand slam, you see how fast he was and how aggressive. I'd personally group him with Edberg and Sampras as an ultra aggressive net rusher. But if you really know tennis, these ATGs don't quite every look like each other. I've never seen anyone who looks like Connors, Borg or Mac. It seems to me that as we progress in time many players look more similar, but even so to me no one quite looks like the Big 3. You can say Djokovic is typical of the modern game, but when he stetches and does his Gumby/Ultron thing, you just see that and realize no one else has ever stretched like that. Borg on clay just doesn't quite look like anyone else to me, and Fed to me is unique. So linking up similar players this way to me feels pretty weak.

Why is it a problem that some players are not on the list? It was just about similarities – and in no way bashing former players.

 

[Topspin 365]

Why is it a problem that some players are not on the list? It was just about similarities – and in no way bashing former players.

Yes, thank you for being the only observant, open-minded one on this thread. It appears others just enjoy bashing players from their comfy sofas.

 

[Gary Duane]

Why is it a problem that some players are not on the list? It was just about similarities – and in no way bashing former players.

Because it was a specific omission that is very strange. I don't think there is another important player that is not on that list except Hoad.

 

[Olli Jokinen]

Like Stan Smith, Newcombe, Edberg, Nastase or Vilas? He just named some former players who reminded him of current players. And how important were Muster and Chang?

YOU FORGOT TO MENTION SOME OLD GUY! INFIDEL!!!

 

[jrepac]

I think it's ok to compare playing styles and relative strengths/weaknesses, but let's face it, most of the greats are pretty unique players. Which is a large part of why they were successful. I could compare Nadal to Borg, based on their success on clay and their determination, but it's not like they hit the ball the exact same way. I could also compare him to Connors...simply on 'will to win' and endurance. But, their games are quite different. I'm intrigued by the Kyrgios - Becker connection...not sure if that's a slight against Boris! Nick also has tremendous shot variety...more than Boris.....but he is flakey. I think Nastase is the better match

 

[Dan Lobb]

Because it was a specific omission that is very strange. I don't think there is another important player that is not on that list except Hoad.

It might be difficult today to find a player who resembles Rosewall or Hoad, they were one-of-a-kind. Sampras used to compare Hoad with Becker, but that was a rather strained comparison at best.

 

[Gary Duane]

It might be difficult today to find a player who resembles Rosewall or Hoad, they were one-of-a-kind. Sampras used to compare Hoad with Becker, but that was a rather strained comparison at best.

I think perhaps that tennis players used to seem unique in a way they do not today because of the visual factor. Everyone see everyone else. Matches are everywhere. You can watch everyone in every way, from more angles and in slo mo.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I think perhaps that tennis players used to seem unique in a way they do not today because of the visual factor. Everyone see everyone else. Matches are everywhere. You can watch everyone in every way, from more angles and in slo mo.

Also I don't see anyone today with Rosewall's style of play, he was essentially a net rusher who set up his approaches by moving his opponent around the court. That style is now dead.

 

[Frankc]

Also I don't see anyone today with Rosewall's style of play, he was essentially a net rusher who set up his approaches by moving his opponent around the court. That style is now dead.

Yes, an essential point - that absence is totally our loss.

These comparisons are very "forced" as stated above.
In brief, the earlier era greats flourished with absolutely varied shotmaking, precise and flexible volley skills, all court tactics, great varied lobs(yes, that used to be an essential skill) and flexibilty for very different court speeds (especially the absolute test, fast grass).
Today's greats - deadly hitting power with spin but a very, very narrow range of shotmaking and surfaces (I'll be kind here...)

 

[Topspin 365]

This is quite hilarious bringing up players who played from the 1950s to early 70s. The point of this thread was to find players of similar playing styles, not exact-to-the-tee or by not comparing their accomplishments. I think most posting here kind of lost it, only responding in a curmudgeon-like manner.

 

[Dan Lobb]

This is quite hilarious bringing up players who played from the 1950s to early 70s. The point of this thread was to find players of similar playing styles, not exact-to-the-tee or by not comparing their accomplishments. I think most posting here kind of lost it, only responding in a curmudgeon-like manner.

Difficult to compare players from the two eras of racquets, the current graphite racquets with jumbo heads have changed how the game is played....for the worse.

 

[Gary Duane]

Also I don't see anyone today with Rosewall's style of play, he was essentially a net rusher who set up his approaches by moving his opponent around the court. That style is now dead.

Even going back to when Laver played Connors, and of course giving away 14 years, you could see Connors sneaking to the net more than players of today, but Laver was continuously rushing the net. That's why it is pure nonsense to compare modern players with guys from the 50s and 60s. It was a different sport. To some extent it remained that way until the rackets changed.

 

[skaj]

Djokovic - Clijsters
Nadal - Borg
Federer - Henin
Simon - Coria
Thiem - Muster
Medvedev - Ciric
Murray - Mecir
Schwartzman - Chang
Kyrgios - Safin

 

[WCT]

Even going back to when Laver played Connors, and of course giving away 14 years, you could see Connors sneaking to the net more than players of today, but Laver was continuously rushing the net. That's why it is pure nonsense to compare modern players with guys from the 50s and 60s. It was a different sport. To some extent it remained that way until the rackets changed.

Back then Connors wasn't doing any sneaking, he just came in. He's at the net almost 25% of the points that we have of that match. Half as many as Laver, but Laver is playing prototype s/v tennis, both serves. Connors is mixing it up. But once they rallied, I don't have the exact stats on it, I'd wager Connors came in at least as much as Laver. Again, off of rallies. This Connors is more like Dan's description of Rosewall. He's basically setting up his net play with his approaches. Different type of approaches, maybe. More hard, deep penetrating drives deep into the corners than slices.

Still, I think your comparison to today stands. How many players come in 25% of the points today. But then you get into the whole racquet discussion. How difficult it is to play conventional s/v or constant net rushing with the equipment, not to mention the surfaces. Consequently, I don't think you see as differences in style of play that are as extreme as they used to be.

 

[jrepac]

Still, I think your comparison to today stands. How many players come in 25% of the points today. But then you get into the whole racquet discussion. How difficult it is to play conventional s/v or constant net rushing with the equipment, not to mention the surfaces. Consequently, I don't think you see as differences in style of play that are as extreme as they used to be.

De-age Connors, Laver and McEnroe and let's see how they do in 2021 with the latest equipment ? I think we would need 1-2 players on both sides, men & women, to find great success with a different style from what we see now. I'd envision that the Connors' style could be relatively successful if someone could hit the approaches the way he did. I was recently watching his '87 USO quarters match against Gilbert (just came onto You Tube) and it was both reminiscent and insightful. Now, he was much older here, but you can readily see he is almost always looking to move forward in the court...hitting early, taking time away from Gilbert and looking for the successive short ball to come in on with a deep/well placed approach. Could a Medvedev morph into this style? Possibly. You just need a guy who thinks about shortening points as aggressively as possible rather then baseline bang-bang.

OR, we find another Rafter to shake up the men's game w/some really solid S&V.
Among the women, Taylor Townsend taking down Halep at the USO a few years ago gave me hope.
In some ways, the women are worse than the men. It's just a matter of who can outlast who from the backcourt.

 

[PDJ]

Barty seems a throwback to the classic Aussies of yesterday both in style (admittedly with the addition of a two handed backhand as well as the the one handed slice) and temperament.

 

[Frankc]

Agreed - she is very, very talented and a pleasure to watch...