No, that’s not the right thought IMO. I would say it’s exactly the opposite: Almost everyone who succeeded was lucky to be there at the right time for his style. An exception maybe an universal genius like Federer.All of them would. Talent is talent.
Of course, if they were playing today, none of them would have the same strokes and technique that they had back then, they'd have a modern game.
Why do you favour Becker over Sampras? I would say both have problems today because serve and volley isn’t a winning strategy.For sure !!!
Agassi , Lendl , Becker !!!
Not so sure ???
Connors , Sampras ,
No chance in hell
Edberg , rafter , mac ,
With serveSantoro.
Like.Basically all the early 2000s dudes would absolutely shred through the likes of Zverev and Tsitsipas. Especially Safin, Roddick and Hewitt would very quickly reach the point where they no long butcher them because they enjoy it but keep on humiliating them out of a sense of duty
Becker and Sampras would be fine today. Look at that match they had in 1996 in hannover. They would have beaten any player in those conditions from this era.Why do you favour Becker over Sampras? I would say both have problems today because serve and volley isn’t a winning strategy.
But they had a quite similar style with Sampras doing everything a bit better than Becker and he was also more consistant (while of course still being inconsistant compared to today’s Big 3).
I agree with all other assessments by the way.
But those conditions are nowhere in today’s game. Even if so, I doubt they would beat Federer and Djokovic with serve-and-volley.Becker and Sampras would be fine today. Look at that match they had in 1996 in hannover. They would have beaten any player in those conditions from this era.
Where they would clearly not fare well is clay. Not just because of nadal, but Federer and Djokovic and Murray and wawrinka would all beat them on clay.
All of them would. Talent is talent.
Of course, if they were playing today, none of them would have the same strokes and technique that they had back then, they'd have a modern game.
No, that’s not the right thought IMO. I would say it’s exactly the opposite: Almost everyone who succeeded was lucky to be there at the right time for his style. An exception maybe an universal genius like Federer.
Talent is most important as you say. But exactly because of that, you cannot just be the same guy and have talent for another thing when it matters in another era.
Let’s pick someone like McEnroe (just as an example). You cannot expect him to be the best baseline basher in the world when he was born in 1990, only because he was “talented”. He was the greatest touch player of all time, but that’s almost a different sport compared to today’s tennis.
I agree though that due to modern training from the beginning all those guys could have been a bit better suited for today’s game. But if on top of they would have developed a totally different style, we couldn’t even talk about them as the McEnroe/Sampras etc. as we know, but rather about completely hypothetical players/characters.
Then other factors come into play as well. Think of Laver. He was just too small to have any success in today’s power game. If we assume he would be bigger today, we would talk about a hypothetical caracter again.
Maybe a touch player like Rafter would have had an era where he could dominate. Or maybe Agassi would have won more if he played today. Who know, but one thing is for sure, you have to be lucky that the style you are made for is the style of your era (or rather the best style for the actual equipment like racquets, strings and surfaces).
But those conditions are nowhere in today’s game. Even if so, I doubt they would beat Federer and Djokovic with serve-and-volley.
A great serve and a great first forehand is always superior to serve-and-volley, because after a not perfect serve you will get passed when you are still in a net-rushing movement. With staying back you have the option to attack a weak return AND just constructing a normal rallye point.
And the offensive power of Federer’s first forehand after a weak return is just as lethal as the first volley of those great 90s players.
One more thing about Hannover 1996: It was a match literally without breaks (1 for each player). Federer and especially Djokovic would break much more often over 5 sets, no matter in what conditions they play.
but not all of them at every time. his example with McEnroe was pretty good. do you think he would be a slam contender nowadays? let alone Laver.It's not that past ATGs would do equally well at any time, but I'm certain they would always slam contenders and win at least a few.
but not all of them at every time. his example with McEnroe was pretty good. do you think he would be a slam contender nowadays? let alone Laver.
not "fail", it's just that for being a Slam contender you need to be among the very best.Of course, that atheleticism isn't going anywhere. Sure they would have to play a different style, but why should they fail at it?
We need players like Kuerten, badly. Easy to root for, original, fights for every point, charismatic, great game, cheerful rather than grumpy.Guga would do excellently
Yeah, we really do.We need players like Kuerten, badly. Easy to root for, original, fights for every point, charismatic, great game, cheerful rather than grumpy.
Is this a joke? 15 slams between them while Mac and Edberg are the two greatest volleyers ever. If you bring them back, bring back carpet and they would decimate anyone out there (including Federer).No chance in hell
Edberg , rafter , mac ,
I agree!! Guga was a God-- so sweet and charming.We need players like Kuerten, badly. Easy to root for, original, fights for every point, charismatic, great game, cheerful rather than grumpy.
I agree. Kuerten would fit right in. I absolutely loved watching that guy play. I also think Safin would be a force in today's game. Well, a focused and dedicated Safin, because he could go through stretches that would make you scratch your head.Guga would do excellently
Opinions vary! That is just like saying only Federer would be successful in the 80's and 90's. Remember Fed modeled his game after Sampras only to modify it as the game changed.No, that’s not the right thought IMO. I would say it’s exactly the opposite: Almost everyone who succeeded was lucky to be there at the right time for his style. An exception maybe an universal genius like Federer.
Talent is most important as you say. But exactly because of that, you cannot just be the same guy and have talent for another thing when it matters in another era.
Let’s pick someone like McEnroe (just as an example). You cannot expect him to be the best baseline basher in the world when he was born in 1990, only because he was “talented”. He was the greatest touch player of all time, but that’s almost a different sport compared to today’s tennis.
I agree though that due to modern training from the beginning all those guys could have been a bit better suited for today’s game. But if on top of they would have developed a totally different style, we couldn’t even talk about them as the McEnroe/Sampras etc. as we know, but rather about completely hypothetical players/characters.
Then other factors come into play as well. Think of Laver. He was just too small to have any success in today’s power game. If we assume he would be bigger today, we would talk about a hypothetical caracter again.
Maybe a touch player like Rafter would have had an era where he could dominate. Or maybe Agassi would have won more if he played today. Who know, but one thing is for sure, you have to be lucky that the style you are made for is the style of your era (or rather the best style for the actual equipment like racquets, strings and surfaces).
Good call. Safin would do quite well. Obviously, Nalbandian could have a good career too.I agree. Kuerten would fit right in. I absolutely loved watching that guy play. I also think Safin would be a force in today's game. Well, a focused and dedicated Safin, because he could go through stretches that would make you scratch your head.
Agassi was a better returner than Federer and he didnt fare well v becker or sampras on quicker courts...i do take your point about courts not as quick now as then tjoughBut those conditions are nowhere in today’s game. Even if so, I doubt they would beat Federer and Djokovic with serve-and-volley.
A great serve and a great first forehand is always superior to serve-and-volley, because after a not perfect serve you will get passed when you are still in a net-rushing movement. With staying back you have the option to attack a weak return AND just constructing a normal rallye point.
And the offensive power of Federer’s first forehand after a weak return is just as lethal as the first volley of those great 90s players.
One more thing about Hannover 1996: It was a match literally without breaks (1 for each player). Federer and especially Djokovic would break much more often over 5 sets, no matter in what conditions they play.
I agree that Agassi is generally the better attacking returner than Federer. It’s similar to Djokovic who is clearly better than Federer in punishing 2nd serves offensively.Agassi was a better returner than Federer and he didnt fare well v becker or sampras on quicker courts...i do take your point about courts not as quick now as then tjough
Only a lobotomized - or de-lobotomized as the case may be - Safin would have a chance now.I agree. Kuerten would fit right in. I absolutely loved watching that guy play. I also think Safin would be a force in today's game. Well, a focused and dedicated Safin, because he could go through stretches that would make you scratch your head.
Well yes as Nadal the best example. His ROS is very average in my view...but once he gets it back in play deep then he becomes dangerous.I agree that Agassi is generally the better attacking returner than Federer. It’s similar to Djokovic who is clearly better than Federer in punishing 2nd serves offensively.
But I’m not so sure if Federer is behind Agassi in bringing back big serves like he did so well against Roddick, Raonic, Isner etc.
Also of course Federer has the better game following his return. The return is only the start, but for winning receiving points the normal game is also very important.
To the person who said, talent is talent, I disagree. Martina Hingis was one of the most talented players in this sport, yet the game simply passed her by. All professional athletes are talented, the most successful ones thrive because conditions favor them, not cause they're more talented.
Much like his slam record, Sampras would be left in the dust in today's playing conditions.
1. He doesn't have the personality for the "grinding" that takes place today.
2. His bullet serves, and point-ending forehand would be returned consistently.
To the person who said, talent is talent, I disagree. Martina Hingis was one of the most talented players in this sport, yet the game simply passed her by. All professional athletes are talented, the most successful ones thrive because conditions favor them, not cause they're more talented.
Much like his slam record, Sampras would be left in the dust in today's playing conditions.
1. He doesn't have the personality for the "grinding" that takes place today.
2. His bullet serves, and point-ending forehand would be returned consistently.
A great serve and a great first forehand is always superior to serve-and-volley
Sampras is the greatest server of all time, no? If anybody can play S&V tennis and make it work, it's him.
Tim Henman would be comparable to Grigor Dimitrov (career success wise)