Which cross-era historical match-ups would you have most like to see?

[El Dude]

This came up in another thread. Imagine "updated" or "modernized" versions of players - as if they were adapted to a different era. My top match-ups I'd like to see:

Rafa vs. Pete on hards. As I said in that other thread, they would have owned each other on clay and grass, respectively - Pete wouldn't stand a chance vs. Rafa on clay and I don't think Pete would have folded on grass vs. Rafa (and Rafa would have been tucked in with a binky on carpet). But a more equalized match-up on hards between these two indomitable champions? Epic sauce.

Pete vs. Roger on grass. While I think Roger was the overall more talented player, I think Pete's serve and competitiveness would have equalized things. I imagine that prime versions would have played many five-setters against each other, and maybe gone 5-5 over ten matches.

Borg vs. Rafa on clay. Imagine a modernized Borg - one born in 1984 rather than '54. This is harder to imagine because a larger gap of time exists between the two, but certainly it would be fun to see the two greatest clay warriors match-up against each other.

And for fun....

McEnroe vs. Kyrgios. I'll just leave this one to your imagination.

 

[El Dude]

Oh, and a fun fact (nowhere else to put it).

Pete Sampras won the Masters Cup (Tour Finals) five times, but never without losing a match. In his first three, he lost Becker in the RR, but defeated him in the final of the second two. In the last two, his losses were to Moya and Agassi, who he defeated in the final.

Becker won it three times, also never undefeated. Two of his losses were to...Pete Sampras, who he beat in the final once.

 

[El Dude]

For something a bit more recent, Federer-Alcaraz. Oh, the magic that would ensue.

 

[Kieran]

This came up in another thread. Imagine "updated" or "modernized" versions of players - as if they were adapted to a different era. My top match-ups I'd like to see:

Rafa vs. Pete on hards. As I said in that other thread, they would have owned each other on clay and grass, respectively - Pete wouldn't stand a chance vs. Rafa on clay and I don't think Pete would have folded on grass vs. Rafa (and Rafa would have been tucked in with a binky on carpet). But a more equalized match-up on hards between these two indomitable champions? Epic sauce.

Pete vs. Roger on grass. While I think Roger was the overall more talented player, I think Pete's serve and competitiveness would have equalized things. I imagine that prime versions would have played many five-setters against each other, and maybe gone 5-5 over ten matches.

Borg vs. Rafa on clay. Imagine a modernized Borg - one born in 1984 rather than '54. This is harder to imagine because a larger gap of time exists between the two, but certainly it would be fun to see the two greatest clay warriors match-up against each other.

And for fun....

McEnroe vs. Kyrgios. I'll just leave this one to your imagination.

Well, if McEnroe faced Kyrgios in a final in Los Angeles then Nick might win. Maybe Nick might even hijack him in an early round of a slam. But if they played in a slam final on any surface, McEnroe would win, every time. Nick isn’t a big occasion guy.

Pete v Rafa is my dream time travel match, for the reasons you said elsewhere: they’re both mentally beasts, with Pete’s hang-tongue cool facing Rafa’s savage intensity, it would be a great contrast, even greater than Roger v Rafa. Rafa has 4 USO titles across his last 9 appearances, and Pete holds the record alongside Roger and Jimmy. That would be the surface, I think where we’d get a great match.

I can’t pick a winner. I’d be like Meryl Streep in Sophie’s Choice. Or worse, I’d be like Cameron in Modern Family discussing Meryl in SC:



But gun to my head? It’s 2013 Rafa v 1995 Pete. I’d take the bullet. Still can’t separate them.

Borg-Rafa in Paris is a really enticing one, as is Borg-Pete at Wimbledon, though I think Pete wins that one.

Roger v 1984 Mac at Wimbledon would be a match to watch over and over, and I think I’d give it to McEnroe. McEnroe is the most gifted player I’ve seen, and that version was impossible to play against.

Pancho v Pete, Novak v Connors, Nastase v Kyrgios, there’s several more that whet the appetite, but Rafa-Pete would be the one I’d pay the most to see.

Feck it, they’d go to five and Pete would steal it…

 

[britbox]

This came up in another thread. Imagine "updated" or "modernized" versions of players - as if they were adapted to a different era. My top match-ups I'd like to see:

Rafa vs. Pete on hards. As I said in that other thread, they would have owned each other on clay and grass, respectively - Pete wouldn't stand a chance vs. Rafa on clay and I don't think Pete would have folded on grass vs. Rafa (and Rafa would have been tucked in with a binky on carpet). But a more equalized match-up on hards between these two indomitable champions? Epic sauce.

Pete vs. Roger on grass. While I think Roger was the overall more talented player, I think Pete's serve and competitiveness would have equalized things. I imagine that prime versions would have played many five-setters against each other, and maybe gone 5-5 over ten matches.

Borg vs. Rafa on clay. Imagine a modernized Borg - one born in 1984 rather than '54. This is harder to imagine because a larger gap of time exists between the two, but certainly it would be fun to see the two greatest clay warriors match-up against each other.

And for fun....

McEnroe vs. Kyrgios. I'll just leave this one to your imagination.

The kit available might make things even more enticing. I think the Borg/Rafa matchup would be closer if Rafa was forced to use a wooden racquet with natural gut strings and a smaller head.

 

[El Dude]

Well, if McEnroe faced Kyrgios in a final in Los Angeles then Nick might win. Maybe Nick might even hijack him in an early round of a slam. But if they played in a slam final on any surface, McEnroe would win, every time. Nick isn’t a big occasion guy.

Pete v Rafa is my dream time travel match, for the reasons you said elsewhere: they’re both mentally beasts, with Pete’s hang-tongue cool facing Rafa’s savage intensity, it would be a great contrast, even greater than Roger v Rafa. Rafa has 4 USO titles across his last 9 appearances, and Pete holds the record alongside Roger and Jimmy. That would be the surface, I think where we’d get a great match.

I can’t pick a winner. I’d be like Meryl Streep in Sophie’s Choice. Or worse, I’d be like Cameron in Modern Family discussing Meryl in SC:



But gun to my head? It’s 2013 Rafa v 1995 Pete. I’d take the bullet. Still can’t separate them.

Borg-Rafa in Paris is a really enticing one, as is Borg-Pete at Wimbledon, though I think Pete wins that one.

Roger v 1984 Mac at Wimbledon would be a match to watch over and over, and I think I’d give it to McEnroe. McEnroe is the most gifted player I’ve seen, and that version was impossible to play against.

Pancho v Pete, Novak v Connors, Nastase v Kyrgios, there’s several more that whet the appetite, but Rafa-Pete would be the one I’d pay the most to see.

Feck it, they’d go to five and Pete would steal it…

Unfortunately it might just come down to the serve. If Pete is serving well--and he usually was--I think he takes it. If he slips at all, the Rafa tidal wave hits shore.

 

[El Dude]

The kit available might make things even more enticing. I think the Borg/Rafa matchup would be closer if Rafa was forced to use a wooden racquet with natural gut strings and a smaller head.

I think Borg wins handily. So much of Rafa's game is that spin, and he couldn't get the torque from a wood racquet. Of course his physicality and forehand would keep him in the match, but this is where we get into era problems. I kind of think the easiest way to play this game is to imagine updated versions of old players. So even '84 Mac with a modern racquet and adapted style - he becomes a demon-wizard that few would have an answer for. But I like Keiran's Mac-Fed. Or Mac-Alcaraz.

 

[Fiero425]

Oh, and a fun fact (nowhere else to put it).

Pete Sampras won the Masters Cup (Tour Finals) five times, but never without losing a match. In his first three, he lost Becker in the RR, but defeated him in the final of the second two. In the last two, his losses were to Moya and Agassi, who he defeated in the final.

Becker won it three times, also never undefeated. Two of his losses were to...Pete Sampras, who he beat in the final once.

Since you like fun facts around here, Ivan Lendl won the YEC at least 5 times as well; twice in 1986 due to move of the event from Jan. to Nov.! Martina Navratilova accomplished the same feat winning in March 1986 (YEC '85) over Mandlikova, then defeated Graf in Nov. that same year; both in 4 sets when doing BO5! That was her final win making it 8 overall in Singles alone!

 

[Kieran]

I think Borg wins handily. So much of Rafa's game is that spin, and he couldn't get the torque from a wood racquet. Of course his physicality and forehand would keep him in the match, but this is where we get into era problems. I kind of think the easiest way to play this game is to imagine updated versions of old players. So even '84 Mac with a modern racquet and adapted style - he becomes a demon-wizard that few would have an answer for. But I like Keiran's Mac-Fed. Or Mac-Alcaraz.

I think we have to establish rules here: in any match like this we should take for granted that both players grew up and learned tennis in the same era, so Rafa would adapt. Remember, Borg had the most exaggerated topspin by any great player at that time. Rafa’s would be similar. The kicker on this match is Borg’s great power of concentration. Chap could hit a rally for 30 minutes and not miss. That might get to Rafa eventually. They’re both attritional, but Rafa builds points so he can sting you with the forehand. Bjorn had the best defensive game, keeping opponents away from such opportunities. It’s a match I’d love to see..

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

Where Rafa was easily able to adapt, Borg was the opposite. Perhaps the biggest weakness of Borg is his being stubborn and hard-headed. He may have won the early match-ups, but Rafa will eventually win more over time. Borg's career will always be frontloaded.

 

[britbox]

Where Rafa was easily able to adapt, Borg was the opposite. Perhaps the biggest weakness of Borg is his being stubborn and hard-headed. He may have won the early match-ups, but Rafa will eventually win more over time. Borg's career will always be frontloaded.

Maybe. You'd have to think that if Borg retired as a serial FO Champion, USO and Wimbledon Runner-up then he could conceivably retire early in any era!

 

[atttomole]

Djokovic versus Pete on grass and hards would have been fun too. I think Djokovic would have dominated on both surfaces, with grass being much closer than on hards. Djokovic’s all round game would have frustrated Petros.

 

[Fiero425]

Djokovic versus Pete on grass and hards would have been fun too. I think Djokovic would have dominated on both surfaces, with grass being much closer than on hards. Djokovic’s all round game would have frustrated Petros.

Agassi was supposed to be Pete's biggest rival! Total BS since Sampras owned Andre; esp. at the USO! Andre was Pete's pigeon there! Pete destroyed an estab. Agassi at the 1990 USO in about an hour & a 1/2! I totally missed it thinking I had time to see the close only to have missed not just the match, but the presentation! Sampras closed out his career defeating Agassi yet again in a USO final in 2002! This was a faux rivalry; pretty much a juxtaposition w/ Fed & Nadal! It really wasn't that much of a rivalry seeing as the greatest match of all time supposedly is their 2008 clash at Wimbledon where Rafa defeated Roger in 5 sets! You could understand Rafa winning in Paris year after year, but if this was a real rivalry, Roger needed to finish Rafa off w/ his dominance on grass! After 2 lengthy careers, they never played at the USO!

Novak's been adaptable, but Wimbledon grass back in Pete's era was a bit choppy still! The courts are more homogenized these days which helped the elites from getting upset as often! It's just too hard to cross compete from different eras!

 

[Kieran]

Agassi was supposed to be Pete's biggest rival! Total BS since Sampras owned Andre; esp. at the USO! Andre was Pete's pigeon there! Pete destroyed an estab. Agassi at the 1990 USO in about an hour & a 1/2! I totally missed it thinking I had time to see the close only to have missed not just the match, but the presentation! Sampras closed out his career defeating Agassi yet again in a USO final in 2002! This was a faux rivalry; pretty much a juxtaposition w/ Fed & Nadal! It really wasn't that much of a rivalry seeing as the greatest match of all time supposedly is their 2008 clash at Wimbledon where Rafa defeated Roger in 5 sets! You could understand Rafa winning in Paris year after year, but if this was a real rivalry, Roger needed to finish Rafa off w/ his dominance on grass! After 2 lengthy careers, they never played at the USO!

Novak's been adaptable, but Wimbledon grass back in Pete's era was a bit choppy still! The courts are more homogenized these days which helped the elites from getting upset as often! It's just too hard to cross compete from different eras!

Yeah, Pete didn’t really like having a rival, other than to thump him when he got the chance. He liked thumping his rivals. Pete would have been fine in the era of the Big 3.

Am interesting match might have been between Ilie Nastase and Kyrgios. Ilie was the greater player but both were supremely talented, verifiable fruitcakes, and even then I think Nasty was much nastier and would win, possibly by driving Nick into the arms of a psychotherapist..

 

[mrzz]

Not exactly a cross-era matchup, but we got robbed to see Kuerten vs Rafa on clay, given Kuerten's injury. Kuerten was a tall player with a deadly DTL backhand, and he could rally that BH till kingdom come. His level dropped at the end of his career because of the injury, but without it, he would be a factor untill 2005 at least.

 

[Kieran]

Not exactly a cross-era matchup, but we got robbed to see Kuerten vs Rafa on clay, given Kuerten's injury. Kuerten was a tall player with a deadly DTL backhand, and he could rally that BH till kingdom come. His level dropped at the end of his career because of the injury, but without it, he would be a factor untill 2005 at least.

He handled Federer easily in 2004, I think it was. Proper clay courter, a match with Rafa would have been interesting…

 

[atttomole]

Yeah, Pete didn’t really like having a rival, other than to thump him when he got the chance. He liked thumping his rivals. Pete would have been fine in the era of the Big 3.

Am interesting match might have been between Ilie Nastase and Kyrgios. Ilie was the greater player but both were supremely talented, verifiable fruitcakes, and even then I think Nasty was much nastier and would win, possibly by driving Nick into the arms of a psychotherapist..

Sure, he didn’t like rivals on clay. And he would have thumped Federer, Djokovic and Nadal. I believe that.

 

[Jelenafan]

Pancho Gonzalez versus any other different era champ…..

Particularly Pancho vs Sampras on indoor carpet.

Can you imagine the two IMO best 2nd serve players mano a mano.

 

[atttomole]

Agassi was supposed to be Pete's biggest rival! Total BS since Sampras owned Andre; esp. at the USO! Andre was Pete's pigeon there! Pete destroyed an estab. Agassi at the 1990 USO in about an hour & a 1/2! I totally missed it thinking I had time to see the close only to have missed not just the match, but the presentation! Sampras closed out his career defeating Agassi yet again in a USO final in 2002! This was a faux rivalry; pretty much a juxtaposition w/ Fed & Nadal! It really wasn't that much of a rivalry seeing as the greatest match of all time supposedly is their 2008 clash at Wimbledon where Rafa defeated Roger in 5 sets! You could understand Rafa winning in Paris year after year, but if this was a real rivalry, Roger needed to finish Rafa off w/ his dominance on grass! After 2 lengthy careers, they never played at the USO!

Novak's been adaptable, but Wimbledon grass back in Pete's era was a bit choppy still! The courts are more homogenized these days which helped the elites from getting upset as often! It's just too hard to cross compete from different eras!

I guess we kind of agree on this. The difference though is that Roger was reaching the finals on clay and losing to Nadal, which in part also gave Nadal a psychological advantage over Federer. Remember how things changed after Roger beat Nadal at the AO in 2017? For Agassi/Sampras, I don’t know how often they played on slower surfaces. It would have been interesting to see how the rivalry was going to play out if they had met more often on clay for example. Not sure if it’s fair to compare the two rivalries. I agree that Nadal Djokovic was a close rivalry!!

The topic of surface homogenization has been beaten to death, and has produced passionate debates over the years. I think Roger would have been fine on grass and clay, even in the 90’s.

 

[Kieran]

Agassi was supposed to be Pete's biggest rival! Total BS since Sampras owned Andre; esp. at the USO! Andre was Pete's pigeon there! Pete destroyed an estab. Agassi at the 1990 USO in about an hour & a 1/2! I totally missed it thinking I had time to see the close only to have missed not just the match, but the presentation! Sampras closed out his career defeating Agassi yet again in a USO final in 2002! This was a faux rivalry; pretty much a juxtaposition w/ Fed & Nadal! It really wasn't that much of a rivalry seeing as the greatest match of all time supposedly is their 2008 clash at Wimbledon where Rafa defeated Roger in 5 sets! You could understand Rafa winning in Paris year after year, but if this was a real rivalry, Roger needed to finish Rafa off w/ his dominance on grass! After 2 lengthy careers, they never played at the USO!

Novak's been adaptable, but Wimbledon grass back in Pete's era was a bit choppy still! The courts are more homogenized these days which helped the elites from getting upset as often! It's just too hard to cross compete from different eras!

I think that was the purpose of homogenisation, which was to encourage rivalries at the top, at the expense of upsets early on. They’re not completely homogenised, of course - Roger has 8 Wimbledons and one French, Rafa has 14 French and 2 Wimbledons - but they’re homogenised enough to make a difference at the sharp end of things. This is why you’re right to say it’s hard to compare different eras. The best a player can be is to be best of their time for as long as possible, but to compare even the nineties to now is interesting, but not easy..