britbox said:
Broken_Shoelace said:
Federer is way too talented and way too good of an athlete not to be good in any previous era. He'd succeed in the 90's because in some ways he is a 90's player (as in grew up in that era and shaped his game accordingly). There's no reason why his touch, movement and serve would be any worse in any other era.
Nadal and Djokovic are just freak athletes. I don't see why Nadal wouldn't do well in say, the 80's when Bjorn Borg did. I mean, is there an era in which Nadal doesn't dominate the clay courts at least?
Djokovic would have been totally fine in the 90's too. It's not like baseliners had no success. He's better Agassi with elite movement IMO.
I think you're being too simplistic but agree on some points.
But here's the thing... Advances in technology have changed the game and how it's played. Racquet composition, Head size, strings (probably the single biggest game changer), balls, courts... They impacted even on players of the same generation. Federberg made a good point about McEnroe (although I would also add McEnroe's outside issues had some impact).
Well, that's a given. Nobody can deny the above. But, my point is: These players wouldn't have to relearn tennis in another era, they'd just have to learn it. And that makes for a substantial difference. It's not like you'd be asking Nadal to play with a different grip, because he didn't travel back in time. He'd just be a product of that era, and therefore, just use whatever grip he feels comfortable with back then. Provided nothing's changed re: his dedication, will, surrounding, talent, and athleticism (and we shouldn't change these variables otherwise it's an endless conversation), why wouldn't he be great?
Am I saying he'd be hitting banana passing shots and inside out forehands with wooden rackets in the 80's? Of course not. But would his athleticism, physicality (and I realize he probably wouldn't be as bulked up in the 80's, but athleticism is athleticism), and style of play not allow him to be great on clay back then? I really don't see any reason why not. No, he wouldn't getting as many RPM's, but elite athletes pick up things incredibly quickly, and that won't change. Nadal didn't become a teenage sensation because of racket technology, otherwise everyone else would have been able to do the same, since every player of his generation has access to the same technology. The way in which he was able to demonstrate his talent was facilitated by technology. That's a big difference, though.
He became a teenage sensation because he's just that good, with a knack for improving, and the fact that his athleticism is almost unheard of. It's really not that that dissimilar to Borg in the 80's. Actually, it's almost exactly the same.
Guys like Laver and Rosewall are extreme examples because if obviously, they can't survive in an era of physical specimens. But guys like Sampras, Federer or Borg have no real physical limitations, so why would their "god-given" talent be any different in any other era? That's what I don't get.
