Federer wouldnt beat McEnroe or Borg - Becker

http://www.tennisworldusa.org/Boris-Becker--Roger-Federer-Hes-not-the-best-of-all-times-He-would-have-lost-from-McEnroe-and-Borg-articolo6851.html

"...However would he have been able to win against McEnroe in 1984 in Wimbledon when John was at his best and using a different type of racket than the current one? I have doubts about it. Would he have beat Borg at Roland Garros and Wimbledon? Also in this case I doubt about it..."

"Technology in modern tennis plays a fundamental role. I started to play with wooden rackets with which it was impossible to do certain things that instead are very easy for Nadal and Federer with this kind of materials. They would have had to get used to different styles. I would like to see Roger or Rafa play a match with a wooden racket and see how they behave. It was a different sport from the one practiced by McEnroe and Borg..."

Not one to sit on the fence is our Boris.
Do you agree its all because of technology that Federer and Nadal succeed as they do?

One point to note is that Federer uses a larger version of the old Prostaff6.0 85....yep, thats 1985...the year Boris first won Wimbledon.
Ironic that.

Who knows how the current generation would play with wooden rackets - impossible to say. Some of today's players might have had more success with wooden rackets - they might have been more suited to their game.
Maybe Fed would have been a journeyman and maybe Rafa would have practiced his S & V endlessly from a young age and been really good at it.
What if? Who knows?

Exactly JHM...which makes me laugh at the comments BB makes at times.

They also learn their style based on the racquets available to them.
Nadal wouldnt learn to whip a wooden racquet the way he does with the Babolat APD he plays with..but you stick a wooden racquet in his hand now and he'll play exactly the same way. Likewise McEnroe still has an agricultural FH with the latest racquets he uses.

I guess Boris is trying to say the slam counts might not have been as high if the technology didnt allow their games to be so dominant...but even then you wonder, given talent is talent, whether they would have played relatively for any era and still been head and shoulders above the rest.

Summary: Becker is a nostalgic, weak era protagonist

I don't know why people even bother making statements cross eras. Different technologies, surface, fitness... It's entirely subjective and will never be proven or even close to it either way.

I wouldn't even guess how fed would have done back then, or they they would get on now.... I have absolutely no idea how it'd turn out.

Becker in "tennis has changed" shocker

Quite agree Danny.
lol M4C.
It would be interesting to see the modern players try out with wooden racquets sometime.

These types of statements assume that the current generation of players are better athletes than Tennis players.

I would vehemently disagree with BB (not BogBrush) that this is a bit unfair to the current players that they would be unable to adapt.

Vilas and Bruguera played very well and could do astonishing stuff with older technologies.

If Becker wants to glorify his peers and himself, this type of a comparison makes that exercise look puerile.

Very disappointed by BB's shotgun comments.

QUite LF. Bruguera's average FH RPM was similar to Nadal's...without poly strings.

Sampras got 5000rpm on his serve (!) with a 85sqin racquet and without poly strings the guys use today.
Can you imagine him serving at 40lbs with poly (like Raonic does) vs the 80lbs (!) with gut he used to do?

All we can do is look at each player in their own era's. People talk about Agassi straddling era's but even he changed tech in 2002...and of course some people argue he did more than just that. At least back in the 70s/80s, PEDs were pretty unheard of...the good old days...unless you count Laver's pre-match Barley water as a stimulant!

It works both ways.

One could just as easily ask the question, would Laver and Borg be able to compete against the top players of today under current playing conditions?
Of course we don't know, and it's impossible to speculate, so greatly has the game changed. For Boris to doubt that Fed could beat Mac and Borg in those conditions is just nonsensical; of course this Federer, going back in a time machine, to play those two guys under those conditions, would lose comfortably.

It's a pretty meaningless statement.

Ha ha! If somehow I could slip back to the 1920's I'm convinced I would easily win a few slams...

hawkeye wrote:Ha ha! If somehow I could slip back to the 1920's I'm convinced I would easily win a few slams...

murray would travel back with you and beat you and then write annoying articles about you... OH NO HE DIIIIDDAANNNTTTT

Lydian, the title of your article is that Federer "wouldn't" (would not) beat Borg and Mcenroe but his quotes to not say that, they only say he has doubts. It's not exactly the same.

You could argue he is on the fence. Anyway, it's certainly an uncontroversial position.

Fair comment HB.
I believe he means "wouldn't" but agree he doesn't use those words.

Its Bulls from Boris, Boris could never digest the current era players get more fame, money etc,. just few days back Fed said Boris was his idol in his growing days due to strong German influence in the are of his early childhood and look what Boris comes up with.

Like LF said those era legends can't beat this era legends under current circumstances and the vice-versa.

Do Boris realize people do like him and hence learn to show bit more humbleness during media review than his personal jealously against current era players?

Now what would happen, if Fed and Nadal would retaliate and say Boris era sucked and their era was nothing but a transitional era, it would only lead to ugly media spat, thankfully Fed and Nadal are much more educated and humble and would never retaliate to such stupid meaningless comments. Boris is talking about this same Federer who said its meaningless to compare era and he never claimed himself as GOAT eventhough most tennis fans and legends do.

Boris you don't have to learn the game from modern day legends but you can learn a bit of humbleness from them.

Nothing really too controversial - it is impossible to compare eras, and unfair to players when the press tries to.

I think it was Federer who when asked about this pointed out that guys used to play to win trophies and not the record books all the time - I guess it was Sampras's bestriding Wimbledon for so long (as well as the etcs!) that really kicked off the current obsession.

I am quite certain no-one can beat Beckers 9 second fumble in the closet!

Federer before mononucleosis would have bageled a peak McEnroe and peak Borg on grass/hard court. Easy as A B C.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Federer before mononucleosis would have bageled a peak McEnroe and peak Borg on grass/hard court. Easy as A B C.

Empty words as always JM...Im surprised you never said he could have done it WITH mono and one hand tied behind his back.

You clearly werent watching tennis in 2005/2006 the golden seasons of tennis.Admittedly Federer cannot move or play like that again, but those 2 years were the absolute peak in tennis history to date, no McEnroe or Borg would dare to believe they could beat that Federer. Stick to playing scrabble and monopoly HN.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:You clearly werent watching tennis in 2005/2006 the golden seasons of tennis.Admittedly Federer cannot move or play like that again, but those 2 years were the absolute peak in tennis history to date, no McEnroe or Borg would dare to believe they could beat that Federer. Stick to playing scrabble and monopoly HN.

My dear lad I wwas watching tennis before your father had a twinkle in his eye... its hypothetical and you cannot back up a statement like you have made its impossible.. but if it makes you happy to believe it then do so.. and I wont tell you there is no Santa either

There's no Santa?

Sorry to have burst the bubble JM

Josiah Maiestas wrote:You clearly werent watching tennis in 2005/2006 the golden seasons of tennis.Admittedly Federer cannot move or play like that again, but those 2 years were the absolute peak in tennis history to date, no McEnroe or Borg would dare to believe they could beat that Federer. Stick to playing scrabble and monopoly HN.

If Federer would have beaten Nalbandian from 2 sets up at TMC 2005, he could have tied McEnroe's 1984 82-3 season.

(I also know Federer was on crutches prior to the TMC and was not very certain of playing TMC - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/4336738.stm).

You can't be sure, it's true. McEnroe in 1984 on that grass was unbelievable.

2012 Federer wouldn't trouble him, I believe. 2006 probably would.

laverfan wrote:
....................................................................................................................................
If Federer would have beaten Nalbandian from 2 sets up at TMC 2005, he could have tied McEnroe's 1984 82-3 season.
........................................................................................................................

It was a bit shabby from Federer, true, but at least he got his act together the very next year when he ended 2006 with a remarkable 92-5.

Could be a long, long time before we ever see such numbers again for a single season - if ever (Novak's 70-6 in his stellar 2011 looks almost routine by comparison ....! )

Indeed; Federer 2005/6 was something that I've never seen before (in watching tennis for almost 40 years) and may never see again.

174-8 over two seasons, with the statistics off clay almost perfect. Ridiculous.

Mcenroes forehand and backhand wouldnt be so stiff looking if he didnt start with a wood racket, so i dont know how it would have stacked up with federers shots if he started now. In the same way i doubt federers shots would have been soo clean if he started on wood. Either way does it really matter, federes achievements don't take away from anybody else's

falzy21 wrote:Either way does it really matter, federes achievements don't take away from anybody else's

It is very sad to see a player of Boris's stature belittle other players and their achievements. He should be happy that the sport that provides, amongst other things, a livelihood, has such a rich tradition, without wanting to anoint a King of Kings. They are all Kings, albeit with different periods of their respective reigns.

laverfan - I'm struggling to work out whether it really is Becker's intention to 'belittle other players.' In his defence I would point to this remark from the original linked interview, but not included in the edited quotes above

"I don't want to diminish in any way the successes of the Swiss"

I do accept however that he then gives room for people to conclude that he is trying to take something away from the present, although I'd say that his comments must be viewed as a whole and not twisted unfairly. Lydian, the OP, has already acknowledged that Becker never actually said Federer wouldn't beat McEnroe or Borg, as was implied by the article's headline.

I believe these sort of interviews must be seen in context - ie an interviewer is invariably desperate for a soundbite and so the interviewee is pushed into providing some good copy. But Becker might also have been smiling and very relaxed at the time, whereas the printed word often conveys a smug pontificating tone, a touch of arrogance even.

That said, Becker does seem overly anxious to talk up the Borg/McEnroe era in relation to the present, which is quite unnecessary given the universal recognition and status he already enjoys as one of the best-ever champions (not least in relation to age). And by highlighting Borg and Mac he is by implication including himself, given that he won his first Wimbledon just a few short years after the infamous tiebreak Final.

To say that technology has changed the game dramatically is hardly controversial. But he then goes much further and adds that modern materials have made certain things "very easy for Nadal and Federer". It begs the question that if the materials make things easy to do, then how come everyone else using them hasn't enjoyed the same level of success, instead of mostly watching while just two players cleaned up an incredible 28 Slams between them ....?? Could it perhaps be because these two have very special talents regardless of equipment and eras....?

If Boris has serious doubts as to how well Fedal might have done in the past with wooden racquets, then can he be 100% confident that more modern equipment is itself a guarantee that former greats would have replicated their past glory in today's game ..... ??