Banged up and nearly retired Agassi played against Federer in his prime in 2004, 2005, US open and pushed him to the edge with the help of cortisone shots to ease the pain. I don't agree with people who claim old generations do not have a chance to compete against the current players. If the same racket technologies and training methods available, I do believe those top of the generations would have chances against modern day champions.
Federer was not prime then. He was just getting to make a name for himself. Even Agassi said that Federer would be a great player from the times he played him.
Lendl would do very well if he were playing today's game. Sampras, too. Agassi was actually around for the beginning of this era and held his own against Fed in a US Open final, so I think he'd be fine.
Djokovic actually has excellent volleys nowadays if you haven’t noticed. I think there’s a trend of younger players becoming better volleyers, and I think the volley finish is making a comeback.
Rod Laver, Roy Emerson, John Newcombe, Tony Roche, Stan Smith, Bob Lutz, Frew McMillan, and Bob Hewitt ALL would have crunched the DJoker at the net with their strong, ultra-fast, precision placed volleying. Check all of their doubles records and you will see the proof for this. 👍🏼🎾🎾🎾🎾 👍🏼🎾🎾🎾🎾
@@betancourt564 except clay...clay is the only specialist surface tbh now. That's why competition on clay is more limited. Outside of southern Europe, clay courts are also rarer - so ppl don't grow up playing on clay.
This is the only reason I prefer the 90s over all other decades. There was real variety and even kind of a lunatic expression. You had your counterpunchers, grinders, and clay court specialist. You had your big servers and even grass court specialists. You had your serve and volleyers, all court players, and aggressive baseliners. You had your Santoros and Berasateguis who played other sports in tennis attire. So, there were really fun battles. Between 1999 and 2003 there were a total of 12 different grand slam champions (Kafelnikov, Agassi, Sampras, Kuerten, Safin, Ivanisevic, Hewitt, Costa, Johansson, Ferrero, Federer, and Roddick). There were 12 different grand slam champions between 1993 and 1998 (Courier, Sampras, Bruguera, Agassi, Muster, Becker, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Kuerten, Rafter, Korda, and Moya). But after 2004, male tennis took 18 years to reach the 12th different champion in Carlos Alcaraz. (Roger, Gaudio, Safin, Rafa... 2 years later, Djokovic, Del Potro, Murray... 2 years later Wawrinka, Cilic... 6 years later, Thiem, Medvedev, and Alcaraz). I am sure if surfaces were more heterogenous, we could have had some great upsets.
The actual technique of especially the forehand changed over the years. Classic style with a linear weight shift forward while swinging without the use of the wrist out of closed stance and continental grip. Then the Jimmy Arias forehand taught to Agassi at Bollettieri used open stance and rotation and the wrist like a windshield wiper using western grip. Finally Federer with the relaxed wrist creating a whip like lag (without effort) from open or semi open stance (which had rotation and linear weight shift forward.) I am amazed seeing teachers still teaching the classic style.
It's impossible to say for sure but I'm of the opinion that IF you could make adjustments for equipment, training and surfaces, that the great players of the 70, 80, 90's would be great players today. Its difficult for me to imagine (having seen many of them in person) that the likes of Connors, McEnroe, Borg, Lendl and Vilas wouldn't have a good deal of success in today's game if as I said adjustments could be made for equipment, training and surfaces. My $.02.
Racket and string technology has changed so much it would make it hard to compare Laver with his little wooden racket and Federer with his modern NASA design tennis racket. But can appreciate Lavers skill and ability to hit whippy topspin off the backhand and forehand and imagine his game with a modern racket.
Would love to see Rod Laver in this convo. His spin, power, competitive coolness and intellect and of course incredibly large and hairy forearms. Give him a modern racquet at age 30 and a year to practice, then see how he'd go against today's best.
Laver is more skillful than any of today's players. He has more variety, better court instincts and excelled on every court surface. The only modern player who can compete against him on a regular basis is Federer.
Sampras seemed unbeatable on hard courts. Huge reliable serve. Great volleying too. Mentally solid. Agassi's return of serve was awesome. So many players across the era's had great qualities. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic next level? Unclear. Big technological improvements in terms of racquet technology and fitness programmes mean it's too hard to definitively compare players from different era's. Players from every era playing at their injury free prime from these era's using the same racquets and employing the same fitness regimes. Imagine that! Level playing fields are therefore impossible. Just appreciate players for what they gave us all.
Those loses came at the end of his career Sampras was amazing on hard courts ( don’t only look at slams) What separates Sampras from Nadal Federer and djoker is longevity Sampras retired at 30 ( or around there) Nadal is 36 djoker 35 That’s the difference
I would have to say the biggest changes are the lesser variances in court surfaces than in previous decades and the change in players' grips - much of which was a result of technology. Graphite rackets with much larger string beds and sweet spots make it far easier to use first the Eastern and especially the semi-western grip; when Borg was hitting with that grip on a 68-square inch racket; Medvedev (as an example) now plays with a 98-inch racket whose sweet spot is nearly the size of Borg's entire racket. This allows for a much easier time of using the swing path that a semi-western grip requires, and absolutely allows for the greater focus on power. You can see this when modern club players try to hit with "classic" rackets, resulting in a vastly higher rate of frame shanks and mishits. And finally, if you're going to throw out "who won more" as the deciding metric, the case could absolutely be made that there were MORE great players at that time, instead of three people dominating the sport for 15 years. 7 different men won GS titles between 2007 and 2019, and only two besides the big 3 won more than 1. Meanwhile, 15 different champions between 1980 and 1990, and 17 between 1990-2000.
Tennis was a shot-maker’s game in the 80’s and 90’s and favored players who hit the best shots. After 2010 the courts have slowed down tremendously especially hard courts and grass courts. Now tennis is a counterpuncher’s game, it’s not a coincidence that 4 players in the ATP top 10 are counterpunchers. Players like Rafter, Agassi, and Sampras wouldn’t be effective in todays game because their shots would not carry as much weight. However players like Kuerten, Moya, Muster, and Juan Carlos Ferrero all of whom were considered clay court specialists in their day, would excel in todays game due to the standardization of surfaces.
NO. The 80's and 90's were the era where tennis was played., the game was difficult, the equipment was archaic, the players played a very difficult game it's called serve and volley, they were much more charismatic they had personality they had more pure athleticism today it's nothing but robots with advanced equipment advance strings and they stand on the baseline basically it's a boring game today it's not real tennis and most of the players today, they are not real athletes.
Hard to say about the players, but tennis as a sport got considerably less interesting since playing surfaces were standardized. Only the hard hitting grinders survive nowadays. No more serve and volley, no more slicers and dicers, one handed backhands almost extinct.
see the agassi sampras 1999 los angeles final and tell me about speed and serve and volley . Players nowadays just focus on baseline with no particular skill standing 4 meters behind the baseline , however if a player with insane net skills arrives i think everyone will have difficulty trying to face sth they dont know
Well, the game is more physical now, and the playing area has been extended with returning area all the way to backstop. That is different. Most players today are afraid to come to net because of passing shots. So many are not comfortable at net. I do admire the physicality and movement of today's players. Alcaraz especially is so frickin quick.
Difficult to compare. Court surfaces have changed a lot: Wimbledon is alot slower, and no fast indoor carpet anymore. I think Rafa, in particular would struggle against guys like Sampras, Becker, Goran on those surfaces.
Actually if rafa was playing on those type of courts from the start of his career...he'd beat them....specially with that explosive forehand(which he can flatten out when he wants). And his volley is the best in the world along with federer's
Rafa has never won the end of the year championships. He has never tooled his game to win on that.surface because he doesnt need to. if he played in the 80s.or 90s, he would. And it does t suit his game.
Good video up until the end. The most common modern strategy is to work your way up to the net and finish with a volley, OR get inside the court and finish with a winner. It's just as aggressive as it's ever been but with more emphasis on strategic patience.
It’s always extremely difficult, almost an impossibility really, to even attempt to compare different players/ Champions from their respective different era’s, but in my opinion, I would add this perspective; Many of the players ( let alone the Champions from the 80’s, and most especially the 90’s ) could compete most favourably with today’s Automatons! Ivan Lendl back in the Early 80’s first paved the way towards Power Tennis and much improved overall Athletic performance, and shortly afterwards came the changes in Racket technology! In the 90’s there were physically Massive and Intimidating players like Aussie Mark Phillipousis ( Massive Serve, Huge Groundstrokes) Richard Kraijchek, and Boris Becker whom single handedly it seems took Power in Tennis into a different stratosphere ( Don’t believe me - just watch his classic Masters Final of 1996 against Pete Sampras Indoors, on Fast Carpet in Munich) which show cased Power Tennis as well as skill, precision, and Athletic prowess at its very best…..even today it is unmatched as a spectacle!! So yes, guy’s from these eras could comfortably compete with today’s players in my opinion, but I believe that before the 1980’s then it’s fair to say that they probably couldn’t? Especially if you go way back to the time of Tilden, Perry, Budge, Austin and Co…..with these guy’s the game resembled more like Ping Pong and a gentile Garden game ( whereas by the 1980’s - it was a Sport- there lies the MAJOR difference!) these guy’s are not even moving when McEnroe throws in a fast Lefty, so you can imagine them being left for dead with the likes of Sampras, Becker & Co!! The Champions from the 1950’s would fare little better I fear, with players still struggling to get a Racket on the Ball, or making decent returns from a fast well placed Service!! The 1970’s are quite possibly where things begin to change, but it’s highly probable even Rod Laver might struggle to keep up the pace…… But look then towards players like Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Gerulaitis, Lendl, Cash, Edberg, Becker, Rafter, Sampras, Agassi……these guy’s especially when equipped with Modern Racket Technology, could in my opinion, easily compete with today’s players, and the likes of Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Rafter, Kraijchek, Ivanisevic, could even beat the likes of Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic……
Your argument does not take into account that the new racket technology made the successful serve and volleyier obsolete. Hence the big servers would go the way of the dinosaurs.
Calling Pete and offensive baseliner who used volleys to finish points is insane, he was a childhood baseliner who redesigned his game to serve and volley specifically to win Wimbledon- he was an allrounder, but a serve and volleyer first
The game has evolved. In the 70s and 80s, only Borg and Vilas played with extreme topspin. Most other players hit the ball fairly flat with a continental grip as most coaches taught tennis in that manner. Also, in the old days they used standard sized wooden racquets. Equipment and heavy topspin changed the game. Today's racquets are larger graphite composite frames which allows more power and spin than traditional wood racquets. When Borg played Vilas at the French in 78, the baseline rallies were lengthy. It was like a chess match waiting for someone to hit a short ball. Now it is 2 or 3 shots and the point is over. Also, Borg was really the only tennis athlete in the 70s. Guys like Eddie Dibbs and Harold Solomon were top 10 players, but not very athletic. The average height of men on tour was about 5'9", today they are over 6' and are very athletic.
The reason why players have "more majors/Slams" these days, is because everyone plays 4 Slams a year, every year. That didn't become the norm until the mid-90s for most top players. Connors for example, played Australia only twice in his entire career, Every only a handful of times (and only once in her first 10 years on tour), etc. Plus many top players played World Team Tennis, and were barred from playing the French Open Also, tennis used to be a sport where the pros entered the game as teens, and retired by their late 20s. These days, you don't see players coming in at 16-17 and competing for Slams (like in the 70s and 80s). Players start later and retire much later than in past years. Plus the tours are far more uniform and smoothly run than back in the 70s/80s
The game has evolved and so have the training regimens and technology; and what 90s greats like Agassi and Sampras did with what they had was incredible, may be just be a notch below what the big three did in terms of high-level playing. But give 90s greats new rackets, trainings, poly string and youth and let's go. It's sad because we don't even really see the serve and volley anymore, and I think that playing style would give Djokovic and other big players some real trouble, especially on faster surfaces. Djokovic is just a little bit better at the baseline game than everyone else, a little more consistent, a little better hitter, and a better returner--but the 90s players had to face completely different surfaces and completely different styles all year long as well as multiple overlapping generational legends. I predict players with styles like Korda, Alcaraz, Rune when they are on and attacking the net more will start to overpower Nole as he slows a bit with age, not this year or even next but in the coming years. I don't think the big 3 would be as dominant given 90s circumstances.
I think that comparing sports personalities from different eras to judge who is better is as productive as deciding who was a better James Bond. It all depends on your generation's perspective and the way the sport is played in terms of speed, physical conditioning, equipment quality, attitude, and the personalities of the players. However, in the case of Tennis, there is an undeniable contrast between the male players that came shortly after the open era began in the early 70s, into the 80s and most of the 90s, with those that have reigned in the past two decades, with some of the most notorious earlier ones demonstrating more charisma and shot-making variety and ability. Obviously, there are some exceptions to this perception, such as Roger Federer these days; but when compared to Ashe, Connors, Nastase, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Cash, Agassi, Chang, Courier, Sampras and others, there is not contest on who the overall better players are. And if I had to pick one among all those and today's players as the best overall, with eyes closed it would be John McEnroe.
Another thing that's changed is that players are now judged solely by how many of the four so-called majors they win. Across the board, (singles, doubles, and mixed doubles) John McEnroe and Martina Navratilova won more titles then any member of the Big Three, and either one of the Williams sisters
I've watched tennis for fifty years and in my opinion only Sampras could compete with Federer/Nadal/Djokovic as the greatest ever. Borg's style could have possibly put him in that group, but even with modern racquets I'm not sure he had the power to ever reach their level.
I've watched for 60 years. Hoad and Rosewall and Laver played with wooden rackets and were not allowed to jump when serving. They played a full match without sitting down and drinking water and running to the bathroom all the time. They would have cleaned up all today's players, like D-day soldiers would do with the modern weak lot.
With today's equipment and conditioning, Sampras, Lendl, Agassi and many others would have been more than competitive. McEnroe might have had an issue. I don't know if a pure serve and volley guy could win a lot these days due to the pace.
Tech directly impacts strategy, technique and foot work eg, racquets now allow for western grips which opens up the stance allowing for great range of motion, spin, and shot options. Its likely oldies would be the same or very close to modern players if they had all the same tech, training snd so forth
Court surface changes, ranking system, tournament seeding system changes and so on, all from around early 2000s. Athletes perhaps physically greater but tennis is a different sport from around early 2000s.
Hard to compare the games of different eras because the equipment is so different, and their games and style of play were developed around their equipment.
old generations were mentally stronger, nowadays facilities made soft players, and they replace their lack of technique, precition and quiality with a incredible physique grace of the techonology and the lack of comeptetitors outside the big 3, sampras would eat them all with nowadays technologies
It’s about poly and modern mechanics. Every major sense Guga’s first French has been won with poly strings. Give Jimmy Arias poly strings and he possibly wins 4 French opens. teach Noah some form of modern groundstrokes and he could be the best player in history
If Alcaraz can develop his serve a bit more and if he keeps the other parts of his game the same or improves on them, I think he's going to become the greatest player we have seen as yet. The combination of his aggression, speed, power, agility, and finesse from all parts of the court is just something we've never seen before. Add to that the fact that he could serve as big as 220 km/h (137 mph) at the age of 18, and you've got a real menace in the making.
@@quentincrisp6933 Developing and improving the serve is something almost all young players can fix easily, it will come with more experience. I agree with OP, if Carlos can consistenly serve as he did in USO final, he'll become unstoppable for his opponents.
Susmito, unfortunately, you never took the time to watch footage and research all-time greats like Don Budge, Bill Tildon, Rod Laver, Roy Emerson, Stan Smith, Bjorn Borg, Pete Sampras, and Roger Federer. Learn my friend, LEARN. 🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾
Alcaraz already has the serve to win big if he hits his targets as he already is the favorite to win the French Open and has won a major. Add in his incredible speed and shot making skills, and he puts incredible pressure on all opponents, including Novak.
I'd crudely summarise it by saying that today's tennis players are better by most metrics, but tennis in the 80s was a better spectacle and styles less homogeneous.
I feel pretty sure if you took the best players from the 80’s and gave them all the advantages of modern players they would hold their own…..you can’t deny talent and they made the most of diet, equipment etc that was available then…..
Top ten best ever in my opinion 1. Roger Federer 2. Novak Djokovic 3. Isle Nastasse 4. Rafael Nadal 5. Jimmy Connors 6. Ivan Lendl 8. Pete Sampras 9. Andre Agassi 10. Manuel Santana
Similar to every other sport, it is impossible to compare players of different eras to definitively determine who is the best ever. I always assume if you took the best players from each era those players will still be the best if you were to drop them in any era. i.e. if you put Bjorn Borg or Sampras in the 2010's they would still be one of the best, and if you took Federer or Nadal and put them into the 1980's they would still be one of the best for that time.
Somehow, for me, I succeed best when I combine both schools of tennis play. Of course, playing from the baseline and having aggressive ground strokes combined with a big serve is a nice and successful thing. But if you’re not able to slice and lob and volley, you’ve lost a very valuable and energy saving set of skills too. Not a fun thing😉
Something that few talk about in comparing different decades with different technologies is how the technology of the day "picked" the top players. Would a prime Roger Federer be able to win with Jimmy Connors T-1000 or Borg's wooden Donnay racket during the 70s and 80s? You cannot hit as hard with the rackets from the 70s and 80s and still keep the ball in the court. What if you went back to the 70s and 80s and gave everyone today's rackets? What hard hitting players outside the top 5 might have been number one players? Ivan Lendl commented on how today's tennis strings make a great difference because they allow the players to put more spin on the ball and keep it inside the baselines no matter how hard they hit the balls. He said when these new strings first came out, he was watching a match and looked away when he saw a player hit a baseline shot way t0o hard to keep it in bounds, and was very surprised to see that the point was continuing when he looked back up. He said that when he was playing, the strings available would not allow players to hit the balls that hard and keep them in play. John McEnroe preferred a smaller racket with a smaller "sweet spot" because he knew that at the net, he would often have to hit the ball when it was not perfectly in the middle of the racket. He appreciated the smaller rackets because they would allow him to "muscle" the ball over the net whereas a racket with a larger sweet spot would have trampolined the ball out of bounds. That is why the biggest racket he ever went to was a mid size. Lastly, tennis is one of the few sports where having a parent who was great at the sport conveys very little advantage. We see legacy players in most other sports. But you hardly ever see a former professional's kids hit the pro-circuit. Even when Agassi and Graf had kids, there just isn't anything there tennis-wise. In fact, the only time I have seen a tennis player's kid do anything in pro sports is Yannick Noah's son who played in the NBA for several years.
Novak cannot volley to save his life? That was never the case. Even in his earlier days, Novak was a capable volleyer. But for the last 2 years, as he has worked to prolong his career, Novak has improved his net game and it is not considered one of the best, if not the best, net game today. Against Medvedev in last Sunday’s US Open final, Novak won 20 out of 22 serve and volley attempt and 37 out of 44 new points. His overhead is another story. While I would mot go so far as to say he cannot smash to save his life, I agree that his overhead is unreliable. But his volley has turned into one of the best in the game.
You can't compare the players. Sport evolves and changes. Every era has its GOAT. Tilden with his then outstanding VH and serve. Budge with his RH and his first GS win. Pancho Gonzales, who dominated so much with his outstanding serve that for a while you were only allowed to play with one serve. Pancho continued to dominate. Rod Laver. 1962 and 69 Grandslam winner and professional player in between. Also dominated because of his strong topspin RH, which was otherwise hardly played. Connors, who could be the first to dominate from the baseline. Known for his extremely strong ambidexterity. Borg with his topspin game and his dominance in Paris and Wimbledon. McEnroe, who was synonymous with ball feel and serve & volley and dominated the tennis world in singles and doubles for some time. Sampras, who combined perfect serve & volley with enormous pressure from the baseline. And finally Roger Federer, who simply drove the baseline and net game to perfection. How can you compare Federer with Donald Budge? This is just as nonsensical as comparing Rocky Marciano to Vitali Klitschko. Could beat Rocky Vitali. Probably not. Marciano is still the greater all-time boxer. Naturally. Could a Franz Beckenbauer or a Pele keep up with football today? No. Are they among the biggest? Naturally. Material is extremely important in tennis. Rackets have constantly improved and adapted to the playing conditions. Would the Agassi of 1992 beat McEnroe instead of Borg in 1981 with his material? I do not think so. Would Nadal win a flowerpot at Wimbledon in the 90s? No, definitely not. Apart from Federer, players would have no chance against the S&V players. Of course the same goes the other way around
Guys like Connors and McEnroe stepped on a court with fire for their opponent. They would have crushed some of today's players with their mental toughness and ultra competitive mindset.
I feel if we ignore the technology and training regimes the top players of old had a different style of play than today. There were a lot more all round players back then who could happily play at baseline and come in to the net, had speed and finesse. Examples in the men's game are McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Sampras. With the exception of Federer who also had it all, most players now just seem to stay at baseline and hit really hard until the opponent makes an error. The style has changed and in particular the backhand. When I was young only Connors had a two handed backhand and maybe one or two others. These days it has completely switched and everyone has a two handed backhand (except Federer in recent times). There is less finesse and placement now and more power.. Let's say for example Sampras was from a later era and at his peak with Federer, Djokovic and Nadal. I am sure he would have been right up there with them all as he had the perfect game ! A good way to test is to give some top current players wooden rackets and see how they get on !
Which are better: modern day players or past greats? We already have the answer to this question: Novak, Rafa and Fed. They are already past greats. All of them are over 35. They are factually better than any top-10 player that has emerged in the past 2 decades. It’s mind-boggling. Federer at 39 and Novak at 33 played inspired tennis to get to the final of Wimbledon. They’re both ridiculous. It took Novak everything he had, plus the invention of a new level of mental toughness and chess-playing to beat Federer. They’re the greatest players of all time regardless of decade - given they’ve been playing in 3 different decades now. Novak then did the same to Rafa at the French. And in Federer we have the absolute answer. He may be the greatest player to ever lift a racket. He’s been playing and beating everyone since the 90s with a style that is unparalleled. The only way to stop a past GOAT is with a younger GOAT. Fed did it to Agassi and Sampras, otherwise they would have continued winning. Rafa did it to Fed. Novak did it to both Rafa and Fed. Thus far, no GOAT competition has risen to challenge Novak. So Old Greats are always better than modern players. If no new GOAT rises, and both Rafa and Novak remain relatively healthy, I don’t see them retiring until they’re 40+. They will continue winning. Federer is about to attempt his 4th or 5th return to the game at 41 years of age after a serious injury… 😳 if he’s 70% of the player he was in 2019, he’ll be top 10.
This kind of debate is always very difficult to have, honestly agree with most of the comments here though, we're just very very lucky to happen to have the big 3 and the golden era at the moment that makes it a bit more black and white but the rest is only hypothetical
A Borg Nadal final at RG might have gone deep into the 5th set with Nadal just taking it. Borg was the best ever on clay until Nadal arrived. Likewise Pete and Federer went 5 sets on grass and Lendl Djokovic might have gone 5 sets on hard courts.
Nadal's Racquet surface was 1 1/2 times larger than Borg's and the Clay was much faster when Both played, using Borg's size Racquet and playing on the faster surface, Borg would have won, Using the larger Racquet and playing on the slower surface Borg would have won as well, but we will never know. A lot of computer matches between them has Borg winning too.
@@Stringfelowhawke super. Agreed, because both is a better clay court player than nadal. Main reason is Borg faced lot of clay specialists and won his 7 clay titles, where as nadal won 90% of his clay titles against very very few clay specialists. Lucky fellows nadal & djoko
@@mahalakshmid8613nadal beat djokovic at 2 semifinals and 3 finals and federer at 4 finals.. You are kidding me??? What gets tougher than those opponents
Later generations always get better in every sport. Hockey, football, basketball, ping pong… have all seen the pace of the game increase. The athletes are getting faster and stronger. Diet and equipments have all improved.
Funny, silly question. Modern era has the best athletes with best biomechanics, sport science, nutrition, physicsl training and training methods and facilities plus gear. Then again, the oldies did well with wooden racquets, and had volleys to envy for the most of current guys.
I believe, this generation is better than 80s and 90s. First of all, the competition is a lot higher. Players are more consistent and their training is extremely vigurous. Nowadays, tennis players train specifically for certain aspects such, movement, speed, power without the racket in their hands. Tennis nowadays is tougher than before and that creates better players. Imagine you are a player and you want to be nr 1 and win a big title. You have Carlor, a gifted player, sinner, Meddy, Novak and on top of this, you have a handful of very good players on lower rankings
It's impossible to compare eras because you can say today's players are better because they have teams and better training because if they faced a player from the 80's or 90's, they would also have teams and training and better rackets. Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal would be quite different with wooden rackets. One thing's for sure, the 80's and 90's had more variety in playing styles and personalities. Everything now is baseline tennis. The courts are slower, including grass. They even dressed better back then. Some of the outfits were off the chain.
Mental toughness is not debated here because it is not measurable. Each generation has two or three of the finest players whose mental toughness is unmatched. Technology and training are tangible. My champion is Bjorn Borg.
The 80s and 90s we’re superior. They still had fun making shots, improvising and playing. Today we have a lot of skilled hard working players. But the show less joy, artistry and variation. Better strings has made it much easier to defend deep in the court and catching the shot makers drives. Still fun to watch but we’ve lost the joga bonito of tennis.
People always long back for the past because the current trend is what you see nonstop now. The old serve and volley was really boring seeing it nonstop though current style is better. Although i would have liked if grass was still fast so you would still see serve volley styles one month a year
I think the 2000s were a good mix of everything. We had a lot of contrasting playstyles and it’s just been boring baseline play ever since the 2010s started.
Have you completely forgot about the 70s? Bjorne Borg, Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Arthur Ashe, Guillermo Vilas, Ilie Năstase, John Newcombe, Billie Jean King, Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova
There are just players that transcend eras. You can put any great player on any era and have them train in what was available at that time and they'd be great.
Their training regiments consisted of a couple of hours of practice. This guys today spend half of their day on the practice. Not one of the old timers could have anything to look for against big 3 in their marathon matches.
I think earlier faster courts gave chances for almost any good server a very decent chance to win the match against great players. Modern day Tennis gives less chances to decent players against the greats like Fed, Djo and Rafa. That made the difference. Champions in earlier decades were great servers. And today great serving will take u no where. So greats from 80s and 90s may not even win much today. But Federer and Djokovic might have very good chances. Djokovic improved his serve in later parts of the career. I think only Federer would have won a lot of majors in 80s. And Nadal anyway would have 14 clay Slams. So Nadal would have been with the highest number of Grand Slams.
Nadal & djoko would have been thrashed in the era from 1975 to 2000. Playing with smaller rackets, Very fast courts, no Hawk eye checking, they would have won very few slams, around 5 each, whereas Federer being very talented , any era specialist, all court specialist would have been the leader of the pack. If all these players had played at the same time, Roger would have won around 15 grand slams, Pete Sampras around 12grand slams, Bjornborg around 11 grand slams, all other players like Agassi, Lendl, McEnroe, connors, Becker, edberg etc around 8 slams each, nadal, djoko around 5 slams each ( Total in around 25 years- 100 slams, all these players together 96 slams
I think in any sport each next generation typically is an improvement of the previous generation in many ways. Not just due to technical improvements, but technological and medical improvements enhance there abilities. However what I would say is that in any sport the previous generations didn't have access to the same environments, in tennis terms thats the change of surfaces. Its well know that up until the 90s there was much more variety in how each surface plays, so the question is both how well would previous generations have fared in the current surface similarity and how well the current generation would have fared in the previous variety of surface. I think many previous players would have had better records with the current environments, but current players would have fared slightly worse in the previous variety. Personally I think Federer has the most racket skills and would have been suited to any era over any other player, whether it be with a wooden racket, massive surface variety or physical conditioning (or lack of it in the past), he'd have still had similar levels of success in any era I feel.
If there is one thing we all can use to compare all the greats of different eras, it's RESOLVE. Greatness goes beyond physical and physicality we cannot really compare as the game has evolved through the ages. But who had the greatest resolve? Who was the toughest to beat, who never broke down mentally or emotionally? Then you will find the greatest players. I thought Borg was not the most gifted player of his era, didn't have a great serve, did not have punishing ground strokes, and was dismissed early on as a great clay court player, and nothing more. But he won Wimbledon five straight years against the most skillful grass court players of his era - Nastase, Connors, McEnroe, Gerulaitis, etc. I've seen Navratilova, McEnroe, and Serena break down emotionally. I've seen Agassi give up on Sampras many times. I've seen Sampras waste points when returning serve (I'll get him when it's my turn). Nadal is mentally tougher than Djokovic or Federer. Connors plays every point like it was his last. The greatest players find the will to win when they are having a bad day. I think Graf, Nadal, Borg and Connors are the hardest to beat, with Federer and Laver being the most gifted.
Imagine Pete with new tech strings and racket even shoes, more practise and more patient from the baseline how many grand slams he could win more, you have forgot to say thag Roger has quit 40 and nole will play after 40+,pete has quit at 31 years of age....
my take on this is the same for all sports. Give Sampras, Unitas or Bird etc. a modern upbringing, with modern coaching and sports science, they would for sure hang with the best of today. comparing past eras to modern era one for one is doing a huge disservice to the old guard.
Comparison of eras should be divided into two categories , single handed back hand players vs double handed back hand players. Double handed back hand looks so illegal. It is a wonder how double handed back hand is allowed in this sport. Titles won by double handed plasters should be equal to half of the titles won by single handed players. For example if nadal, Djoker stop with winning 24 slams each, it should be treated as only 12 slams won by each or Roger Federer’s 20 slams should be equal to 40 slams , if he had played tennis double handed
All things being equal, I believe that some of the greats from other eras (especially from Rod Laver down) would have been on par with the big three. At the very least would have given them all they could handle.
The answer to the question of who is better would be found by putting a wooden racquet in a modern player's hands. My guess is it would come out pretty even. With the exception of Laver. No one can compare. 1 amateur annual grand slam, 2 professional annual grand slams, 1 open annual grand slam. 19 majors (amateur, professional and open).
TV match scheduling is difficult because of the variable length of matches. Often tournament websites are often poorly run and provide poor info on draws, results and live scores. The game itself has gotten more boring, as baseline slugfests simply are not very compelling with errors resulting in much more points than winners or amazing, skillful shots. Also, the restrtained rules of tennis, with quiet crowds is also boring and frankly ridiculous. There is nothing that convinces me pro players couldn't cope with screaming fans during play. Now, if everyone is quiet and one or two people shout out randomly, or at key moments during play, that could be distracting for players, but a constant cheering and shouting should just dissolve into a tolerable cacophony that could easily be ignored and played through. Imagine asking soccer, or basketball, or even baseball fans to be quiet during play. No one would buy tickets. Bottom line? Tennis needs to be more fun and shorter. No ad scoring. No 5-set, 4+ hour marathons. Only best two of three set matches with third set decided by 10-point tie breaks. Let fans cheer and shout. Maybe only fans at each end of the court should be made to remain constantly seated, if not quiet. Give extra points for points won on volleys to encourage more coming to the net. Develop team tennis with men and women on both teams and a system of scoring for both doubles and singles and mixed doubles with winning scores determined by points won instead of games and sets. Make it fasted paced and competitive. If football, baseball, and basketball can evolve the game rules that actually improve the fan experience without destroying the game, then by all means, try some new things.
It is impossible to accurately compare eras and styles. But if you were to compare them anyway, you can only compare how they did it. Or you could try to speculate different scenarios. It’s all opinion based at the end. What the big three have done, which no other eras have accomplished, is perfect balance between physique, technique and competitiveness. These guys just won’t quit. They won’t beat themselves. They will hit the clutch ace. Or the clutch defensive passing shot. Or just annihilate newcomers with power and accuracy. Plus them three are pretty much the best returners. They are simply the best at everything. Could Sampras or Lendl compete against them if they born in the 80s or 90s? Idk. Maybe. But other than these two I just mentioned, i dont think there are too many that could, regardless of the era.
The way they talk about Michael's height, you'd think he was 5'2". He was the same height as Rod Laver and Serena Williams, an inch taller than Ken Rosewall , three inches taller than Pancho Segura and Bobby Riggs (both world number ones and multiple slam winners). He was only an inch less than Jimmy Connors, two inches less than Agassi and McEnroe, and two inches taller than the amazing Diego Sxhwartzmann. He was shorter than average pro tennis player, but not tiny. He was exactly average for an American man, and tall for a Chinese-American man.
First of all, the equipment is HELLA different. I grew up in the 70s and the game was significantly slower back then, and the racquets were wooden sticks with string. Technology changed the game in a big way. Pete, Andre, and several others could mos def compete with the present day players.
Just take a look the 1981 to 2002 champs of Grand Slam and the runners up! For discovering how many good player were in that era. And then, look since 2004 to 2021 the champs and against they won the Grand Slam! This next era or new era will be better! There are many good players.
For Men’s Singles Tennis the Big 3 Era of the past 2 decades is superior to all others. Federer, Nadal & Djokovic combined have won almost as many Grand Slam titles than the best of the prior Open Era period: Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Sampras, Agassi. The Big 3 have won 63 of 76 Grand Slams (83%) from Wimbledon 2003 to Wimbledon 2022 (19 years). The other 9 greats from 1974 to 2003 (29 years) with at least 6 GS each won a combined total of 75 GS. The Big 3 have won all the 4 different Grand Slams at least once each. For the other 9, only one has won all 4 Grand Slams and that was Agassi.
That's not a fair comparison. For example, Borg retired at 26 and had already 11 GS while he never participated in AO (which wasn't as 'grand' as it is now). Imagine if he continued playing and participating in AO?
@@my8osprive I like looking at reality not imagination. Borg’s icy demeanor was hiding extreme mental pressure which he couldn’t handle after a while. Look at McEnroe who took time off and afterwards he just wasn’t as good. Singles tennis at the top level has the mental toughness which sets the great apart. What the Big 3 have done over the past two decades is unparalleled.
@@RamZar50 sure Borg had mental issues but he didn't have a team of professionals behind him, but just a coach. The big 3 have an army of pros behind them now. More money involved.
Tennis has become very standardized .. The 80's , 90's and early 2000's players all had unique styles and their own ways of playing. everyone plays very similar today. not sure how you can debate who's better.
Easy to answer. Have modern players play with a wood racquet and see his speed slow down 40% and only a handfull of aces. Have them play without bathroom breaks and coach assistance. Modern players are simps and wimps compared to old players. I saw Borg played Vilas at French open for 5 hours straight WITHOUT a bathroom break.
Banged up and nearly retired Agassi played against Federer in his prime in 2004, 2005, US open and pushed him to the edge with the help of cortisone shots to ease the pain.
I don't agree with people who claim old generations do not have a chance to compete against the current players. If the same racket technologies and training methods available, I do believe those top of the generations would have chances against modern day champions.
Federer was not prime then. He was just getting to make a name for himself. Even Agassi said that Federer would be a great player from the times he played him.
old generatiions where mentally stronger under pressure
Federer won like 10 Time in row vs Andre.and only 3 matches are close
@@cchavezjr7
He was
2004 3 GS
2005 2 GS
@@longlong3153 And Andre didn't have a chance against him. The times Andre did beat him or was competitive, Fed was nowhere near prime.
That photo of McEnroe, Lendl, Borg and Connors standing shoulder to shoulder was epic.
They were 70s and 80s, not 80s and 90s.
Lendl would do very well if he were playing today's game. Sampras, too. Agassi was actually around for the beginning of this era and held his own against Fed in a US Open final, so I think he'd be fine.
Its crazy that still in 2022 Rafa, Novak and Roger are example of MODERN tennis
Djokovic actually has excellent volleys nowadays if you haven’t noticed. I think there’s a trend of younger players becoming better volleyers, and I think the volley finish is making a comeback.
I beg to differ
Compared to Laver, McEnroe, Edberg and Cash, he has terrible volleys! FACT!
Rod Laver, Roy Emerson, John Newcombe, Tony Roche, Stan Smith, Bob Lutz, Frew McMillan, and Bob Hewitt ALL would have crunched the DJoker at the net with their strong, ultra-fast, precision placed volleying. Check all of their doubles records and you will see the proof for this. 👍🏼🎾🎾🎾🎾 👍🏼🎾🎾🎾🎾
@@TennisLegends-ebay and you no what he don’t need volleys because he’s cained all there records
@@ericestrada2496 Auger Aliassime does not have a good volley or drop shot game. He lacks the creativity to pull it off.
90s is the era of specialists...now every surface is basically the same speed...
If they is the case, why Nadal has won pretty much every time he was healthy Roland Garros? Clay should be more open to other players and is not...
@@betancourt564 except clay...clay is the only specialist surface tbh now. That's why competition on clay is more limited. Outside of southern Europe, clay courts are also rarer - so ppl don't grow up playing on clay.
@@CW-rx2js well, in Norway's there are many of them
This is the only reason I prefer the 90s over all other decades. There was real variety and even kind of a lunatic expression. You had your counterpunchers, grinders, and clay court specialist. You had your big servers and even grass court specialists. You had your serve and volleyers, all court players, and aggressive baseliners. You had your Santoros and Berasateguis who played other sports in tennis attire. So, there were really fun battles. Between 1999 and 2003 there were a total of 12 different grand slam champions (Kafelnikov, Agassi, Sampras, Kuerten, Safin, Ivanisevic, Hewitt, Costa, Johansson, Ferrero, Federer, and Roddick). There were 12 different grand slam champions between 1993 and 1998 (Courier, Sampras, Bruguera, Agassi, Muster, Becker, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Kuerten, Rafter, Korda, and Moya). But after 2004, male tennis took 18 years to reach the 12th different champion in Carlos Alcaraz. (Roger, Gaudio, Safin, Rafa... 2 years later, Djokovic, Del Potro, Murray... 2 years later Wawrinka, Cilic... 6 years later, Thiem, Medvedev, and Alcaraz). I am sure if surfaces were more heterogenous, we could have had some great upsets.
@@betancourt564 i mean there are no clay specialists...kinda answered that in my original comment
The actual technique of especially the forehand changed over the years. Classic style with a linear weight shift forward while swinging without the use of the wrist out of closed stance and continental grip. Then the Jimmy Arias forehand taught to Agassi at Bollettieri used open stance and rotation and the wrist like a windshield wiper using western grip. Finally Federer with the relaxed wrist creating a whip like lag (without effort) from open or semi open stance (which had rotation and linear weight shift forward.) I am amazed seeing teachers still teaching the classic style.
It's impossible to say for sure but I'm of the opinion that IF you could make adjustments for equipment, training and surfaces, that the great players of the 70, 80, 90's would be great players today. Its difficult for me to imagine (having seen many of them in person) that the likes of Connors, McEnroe, Borg, Lendl and Vilas wouldn't have a good deal of success in today's game if as I said adjustments could be made for equipment, training and surfaces. My $.02.
Racket and string technology has changed so much it would make it hard to compare Laver with his little wooden racket and Federer with his modern NASA design tennis racket. But can appreciate Lavers skill and ability to hit whippy topspin off the backhand and forehand and imagine his game with a modern racket.
Would love to see Rod Laver in this convo. His spin, power, competitive coolness and intellect and of course incredibly large and hairy forearms.
Give him a modern racquet at age 30 and a year to practice, then see how he'd go against today's best.
Laver is more skillful than any of today's players. He has more variety, better court instincts and excelled on every court surface. The only modern player who can compete against him on a regular basis is Federer.
He could.do that at current speed?@@seveglider8406
Sampras seemed unbeatable on hard courts. Huge reliable serve. Great volleying too. Mentally solid. Agassi's return of serve was awesome. So many players across the era's had great qualities. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic next level? Unclear. Big technological improvements in terms of racquet technology and fitness programmes mean it's too hard to definitively compare players from different era's. Players from every era playing at their injury free prime from these era's using the same racquets and employing the same fitness regimes. Imagine that! Level playing fields are therefore impossible. Just appreciate players for what they gave us all.
Sampras only won 2 AO on hard. He also lost to Hewitt and Safin in the finals of the USO. Hardly "unbeatable on hard".
Those loses came at the end of his career
Sampras was amazing on hard courts ( don’t only look at slams)
What separates Sampras from Nadal Federer and djoker is longevity
Sampras retired at 30 ( or around there) Nadal is 36 djoker 35
That’s the difference
@@jsofianos agreed
I would have to say the biggest changes are the lesser variances in court surfaces than in previous decades and the change in players' grips - much of which was a result of technology.
Graphite rackets with much larger string beds and sweet spots make it far easier to use first the Eastern and especially the semi-western grip; when Borg was hitting with that grip on a 68-square inch racket; Medvedev (as an example) now plays with a 98-inch racket whose sweet spot is nearly the size of Borg's entire racket. This allows for a much easier time of using the swing path that a semi-western grip requires, and absolutely allows for the greater focus on power. You can see this when modern club players try to hit with "classic" rackets, resulting in a vastly higher rate of frame shanks and mishits.
And finally, if you're going to throw out "who won more" as the deciding metric, the case could absolutely be made that there were MORE great players at that time, instead of three people dominating the sport for 15 years. 7 different men won GS titles between 2007 and 2019, and only two besides the big 3 won more than 1. Meanwhile, 15 different champions between 1980 and 1990, and 17 between 1990-2000.
i grew up with chang, agassi and sampras. i loved them. zero shot that their primes would hold a candle to the BIG 3's primes.
Tennis was a shot-maker’s game in the 80’s and 90’s and favored players who hit the best shots. After 2010 the courts have slowed down tremendously especially hard courts and grass courts. Now tennis is a counterpuncher’s game, it’s not a coincidence that 4 players in the ATP top 10 are counterpunchers. Players like Rafter, Agassi, and Sampras wouldn’t be effective in todays game because their shots would not carry as much weight. However players like Kuerten, Moya, Muster, and Juan Carlos Ferrero all of whom were considered clay court specialists in their day, would excel in todays game due to the standardization of surfaces.
Did clay courts slow down as well?
I agree. Tennis is always changing, albeit slowly, and players change along with it.
Slowing down the courts has hurt the game terribly.
NO. The 80's and 90's were the era where tennis was played., the game was difficult, the equipment was archaic, the players played a very difficult game it's called serve and volley, they were much more charismatic they had personality they had more pure athleticism today it's nothing but robots with advanced equipment advance strings and they stand on the baseline basically it's a boring game today it's not real tennis and most of the players today, they are not real athletes.
It's not counter punching as much as it's first strike tennis!
Hard to say about the players, but tennis as a sport got considerably less interesting since playing surfaces were standardized. Only the hard hitting grinders survive nowadays. No more serve and volley, no more slicers and dicers, one handed backhands almost extinct.
The racquets changed everything. No server can hit a first volley at the service line because the returns are coming back too fast -
see the agassi sampras 1999 los angeles final and tell me about speed and serve and volley . Players nowadays just focus on baseline with no particular skill standing 4 meters behind the baseline , however if a player with insane net skills arrives i think everyone will have difficulty trying to face sth they dont know
not so much the rackets but the strings
Well, the game is more physical now, and the playing area has been extended with returning area all the way to backstop. That is different. Most players today are afraid to come to net because of passing shots. So many are not comfortable at net. I do admire the physicality and movement of today's players. Alcaraz especially is so frickin quick.
Every generation have a great players
Difficult to compare. Court surfaces have changed a lot: Wimbledon is alot slower, and no fast indoor carpet anymore. I think Rafa, in particular would struggle against guys like Sampras, Becker, Goran on those surfaces.
Actually if rafa was playing on those type of courts from the start of his career...he'd beat them....specially with that explosive forehand(which he can flatten out when he wants). And his volley is the best in the world along with federer's
Rafa has never won the end of the year championships. He has never tooled his game to win on that.surface because he doesnt need to. if he played in the 80s.or 90s, he would. And it does t suit his game.
Good video up until the end. The most common modern strategy is to work your way up to the net and finish with a volley, OR get inside the court and finish with a winner. It's just as aggressive as it's ever been but with more emphasis on strategic patience.
It’s always extremely difficult, almost an impossibility really, to even attempt to compare different players/ Champions from their respective different era’s, but in my opinion, I would add this perspective;
Many of the players ( let alone the Champions from the 80’s, and most especially the 90’s ) could compete most favourably with today’s Automatons!
Ivan Lendl back in the Early 80’s first paved the way towards Power Tennis and much improved overall Athletic performance, and shortly afterwards came the changes in Racket technology!
In the 90’s there were physically Massive and Intimidating players like Aussie Mark Phillipousis ( Massive Serve, Huge Groundstrokes) Richard Kraijchek, and Boris Becker whom single handedly it seems took Power in Tennis into a different stratosphere ( Don’t believe me - just watch his classic Masters Final of 1996 against Pete Sampras Indoors, on Fast Carpet in Munich) which show cased Power Tennis as well as skill, precision, and Athletic prowess at its very best…..even today it is unmatched as a spectacle!!
So yes, guy’s from these eras could comfortably compete with today’s players in my opinion, but I believe that before the 1980’s then it’s fair to say that they probably couldn’t?
Especially if you go way back to the time of Tilden, Perry, Budge, Austin and Co…..with these guy’s the game resembled more like Ping Pong and a gentile Garden game ( whereas by the 1980’s - it was a Sport- there lies the MAJOR difference!) these guy’s are not even moving when McEnroe throws in a fast Lefty, so you can imagine them being left for dead with the likes of Sampras, Becker & Co!!
The Champions from the 1950’s would fare little better I fear, with players still struggling to get a Racket on the Ball, or making decent returns from a fast well placed Service!!
The 1970’s are quite possibly where things begin to change, but it’s highly probable even Rod Laver might struggle to keep up the pace……
But look then towards players like Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Gerulaitis, Lendl, Cash, Edberg, Becker, Rafter, Sampras, Agassi……these guy’s especially when equipped with Modern Racket Technology, could in my opinion, easily compete with today’s players, and the likes of Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Rafter, Kraijchek, Ivanisevic, could even beat the likes of Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic……
Your argument does not take into account that the new racket technology made the successful serve and volleyier obsolete. Hence the big servers would go the way of the dinosaurs.
Fast court : Sampras easy
Becker above - 7 - 6 indoor carpet court H2H record.(to Becker) Even Sampras said " Becker is the best indoor player "
Calling Pete and offensive baseliner who used volleys to finish points is insane, he was a childhood baseliner who redesigned his game to serve and volley specifically to win Wimbledon- he was an allrounder, but a serve and volleyer first
The game has evolved. In the 70s and 80s, only Borg and Vilas played with extreme topspin. Most other players hit the ball fairly flat with a continental grip as most coaches taught tennis in that manner. Also, in the old days they used standard sized wooden racquets. Equipment and heavy topspin changed the game. Today's racquets are larger graphite composite frames which allows more power and spin than traditional wood racquets. When Borg played Vilas at the French in 78, the baseline rallies were lengthy. It was like a chess match waiting for someone to hit a short ball. Now it is 2 or 3 shots and the point is over. Also, Borg was really the only tennis athlete in the 70s. Guys like Eddie Dibbs and Harold Solomon were top 10 players, but not very athletic. The average height of men on tour was about 5'9", today they are over 6' and are very athletic.
The reason why players have "more majors/Slams" these days, is because everyone plays 4 Slams a year, every year. That didn't become the norm until the mid-90s for most top players. Connors for example, played Australia only twice in his entire career, Every only a handful of times (and only once in her first 10 years on tour), etc. Plus many top players played World Team Tennis, and were barred from playing the French Open
Also, tennis used to be a sport where the pros entered the game as teens, and retired by their late 20s. These days, you don't see players coming in at 16-17 and competing for Slams (like in the 70s and 80s). Players start later and retire much later than in past years. Plus the tours are far more uniform and smoothly run than back in the 70s/80s
that tells you one thing. the game and players have evolved a lot more physically than the previous generation
Not nadal 😂
Dude plays 2 slams at max at 100 percent of his health 😢
Great summary! Impossible to compare but you still somehow did a great analysis and provided clear reasons.
The game has evolved and so have the training regimens and technology; and what 90s greats like Agassi and Sampras did with what they had was incredible, may be just be a notch below what the big three did in terms of high-level playing. But give 90s greats new rackets, trainings, poly string and youth and let's go. It's sad because we don't even really see the serve and volley anymore, and I think that playing style would give Djokovic and other big players some real trouble, especially on faster surfaces. Djokovic is just a little bit better at the baseline game than everyone else, a little more consistent, a little better hitter, and a better returner--but the 90s players had to face completely different surfaces and completely different styles all year long as well as multiple overlapping generational legends. I predict players with styles like Korda, Alcaraz, Rune when they are on and attacking the net more will start to overpower Nole as he slows a bit with age, not this year or even next but in the coming years. I don't think the big 3 would be as dominant given 90s circumstances.
Imagine the 1970s with wooden racquets and Jimbo's steel one.
I think that comparing sports personalities from different eras to judge who is better is as productive as deciding who was a better James Bond. It all depends on your generation's perspective and the way the sport is played in terms of speed, physical conditioning, equipment quality, attitude, and the personalities of the players. However, in the case of Tennis, there is an undeniable contrast between the male players that came shortly after the open era began in the early 70s, into the 80s and most of the 90s, with those that have reigned in the past two decades, with some of the most notorious earlier ones demonstrating more charisma and shot-making variety and ability. Obviously, there are some exceptions to this perception, such as Roger Federer these days; but when compared to Ashe, Connors, Nastase, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Cash, Agassi, Chang, Courier, Sampras and others, there is not contest on who the overall better players are. And if I had to pick one among all those and today's players as the best overall, with eyes closed it would be John McEnroe.
Another thing that's changed is that players are now judged solely by how many of the four so-called majors they win. Across the board, (singles, doubles, and mixed doubles) John McEnroe and Martina Navratilova won more titles then any member of the Big Three, and either one of the Williams sisters
I've watched tennis for fifty years and in my opinion only Sampras could compete with Federer/Nadal/Djokovic as the greatest ever. Borg's style could have possibly put him in that group, but even with modern racquets I'm not sure he had the power to ever reach their level.
His game would have been a little different for todays game. Imagine if he had modern training and nutrition.
What about Andre?
@@Editor_Hound I love Andre, but when Pete was playing his best Andre could never beat him, so I can't put him in that highest category
I've watched for 60 years. Hoad and Rosewall and Laver played with wooden rackets and were not allowed to jump when serving. They played a full match without sitting down and drinking water and running to the bathroom all the time. They would have cleaned up all today's players, like D-day soldiers would do with the modern weak lot.
@@normangoldstuck8107 Your nostalgia is clouding your judgement. You really think Rosewall would clean up Nadal?
With today's equipment and conditioning, Sampras, Lendl, Agassi and many others would have been more than competitive. McEnroe might have had an issue. I don't know if a pure serve and volley guy could win a lot these days due to the pace.
Passing shots are too good now and they slowed up the grass at Wimbledon so it plays like a clay court. Not good for the game at all.
What pace?? All courts are slow
@@jm7804 a clay court?
Tech directly impacts strategy, technique and foot work eg, racquets now allow for western grips which opens up the stance allowing for great range of motion, spin, and shot options.
Its likely oldies would be the same or very close to modern players if they had all the same tech, training snd so forth
Court surface changes, ranking system, tournament seeding system changes and so on, all from around early 2000s. Athletes perhaps physically greater but tennis is a different sport from around early 2000s.
We see a net increase in one handed backhand players. Also, the drop shot is starting to be used almost abusively.
Hard to compare the games of different eras because the equipment is so different, and their games and style of play were developed around their equipment.
old generations were mentally stronger, nowadays facilities made soft players, and they replace their lack of technique, precition and quiality with a incredible physique grace of the techonology and the lack of comeptetitors outside the big 3, sampras would eat them all with nowadays technologies
The golden age feels about right, with they way it covered too on the major networks.
It’s about poly and modern mechanics. Every major sense Guga’s first French has been won with poly strings. Give Jimmy Arias poly strings and he possibly wins 4 French opens. teach Noah some form of modern groundstrokes and he could be the best player in history
If Alcaraz can develop his serve a bit more and if he keeps the other parts of his game the same or improves on them, I think he's going to become the greatest player we have seen as yet. The combination of his aggression, speed, power, agility, and finesse from all parts of the court is just something we've never seen before. Add to that the fact that he could serve as big as 220 km/h (137 mph) at the age of 18, and you've got a real menace in the making.
If !
@@quentincrisp6933 Developing and improving the serve is something almost all young players can fix easily, it will come with more experience. I agree with OP, if Carlos can consistenly serve as he did in USO final, he'll become unstoppable for his opponents.
@@quentincrisp6933 E-x-a-c-t-l-y!! IF!! lol
Susmito, unfortunately, you never took the time to watch footage and research all-time greats like Don Budge, Bill Tildon, Rod Laver, Roy Emerson, Stan Smith, Bjorn Borg, Pete Sampras, and Roger Federer. Learn my friend, LEARN. 🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾
Alcaraz already has the serve to win big if he hits his targets as he already is the favorite to win the French Open and has won a major. Add in his incredible speed and shot making skills, and he puts incredible pressure on all opponents, including Novak.
I'd crudely summarise it by saying that today's tennis players are better by most metrics, but tennis in the 80s was a better spectacle and styles less homogeneous.
If Borg was born 30 years later he would have adapted. Same with Lendl and Becker and so on.
I feel pretty sure if you took the best players from the 80’s and gave them all the advantages of modern players they would hold their own…..you can’t deny talent and they made the most of diet, equipment etc that was available then…..
Top ten best ever in my opinion 1. Roger Federer 2. Novak Djokovic 3. Isle Nastasse 4. Rafael Nadal 5. Jimmy Connors 6. Ivan Lendl 8. Pete Sampras 9. Andre Agassi 10. Manuel Santana
Nasty? Huh!
Similar to every other sport, it is impossible to compare players of different eras to definitively determine who is the best ever. I always assume if you took the best players from each era those players will still be the best if you were to drop them in any era. i.e. if you put Bjorn Borg or Sampras in the 2010's they would still be one of the best, and if you took Federer or Nadal and put them into the 1980's they would still be one of the best for that time.
not a fan of djokovic are we?
Somehow, for me, I succeed best when I combine both schools of tennis play. Of course, playing from the baseline and having aggressive ground strokes combined with a big serve is a nice and successful thing. But if you’re not able to slice and lob and volley, you’ve lost a very valuable and energy saving set of skills too. Not a fun thing😉
Something that few talk about in comparing different decades with different technologies is how the technology of the day "picked" the top players. Would a prime Roger Federer be able to win with Jimmy Connors T-1000 or Borg's wooden Donnay racket during the 70s and 80s? You cannot hit as hard with the rackets from the 70s and 80s and still keep the ball in the court.
What if you went back to the 70s and 80s and gave everyone today's rackets? What hard hitting players outside the top 5 might have been number one players?
Ivan Lendl commented on how today's tennis strings make a great difference because they allow the players to put more spin on the ball and keep it inside the baselines no matter how hard they hit the balls. He said when these new strings first came out, he was watching a match and looked away when he saw a player hit a baseline shot way t0o hard to keep it in bounds, and was very surprised to see that the point was continuing when he looked back up. He said that when he was playing, the strings available would not allow players to hit the balls that hard and keep them in play.
John McEnroe preferred a smaller racket with a smaller "sweet spot" because he knew that at the net, he would often have to hit the ball when it was not perfectly in the middle of the racket. He appreciated the smaller rackets because they would allow him to "muscle" the ball over the net whereas a racket with a larger sweet spot would have trampolined the ball out of bounds. That is why the biggest racket he ever went to was a mid size.
Lastly, tennis is one of the few sports where having a parent who was great at the sport conveys very little advantage. We see legacy players in most other sports. But you hardly ever see a former professional's kids hit the pro-circuit. Even when Agassi and Graf had kids, there just isn't anything there tennis-wise.
In fact, the only time I have seen a tennis player's kid do anything in pro sports is Yannick Noah's son who played in the NBA for several years.
Novak cannot volley to save his life? That was never the case. Even in his earlier days, Novak was a capable volleyer. But for the last 2 years, as he has worked to prolong his career, Novak has improved his net game and it is not considered one of the best, if not the best, net game today. Against Medvedev in last Sunday’s US Open final, Novak won 20 out of 22 serve and volley attempt and 37 out of 44 new points. His overhead is another story. While I would mot go so far as to say he cannot smash to save his life, I agree that his overhead is unreliable. But his volley has turned into one of the best in the game.
You can't compare the players. Sport evolves and changes. Every era has its GOAT. Tilden with his then outstanding VH and serve. Budge with his RH and his first GS win. Pancho Gonzales, who dominated so much with his outstanding serve that for a while you were only allowed to play with one serve. Pancho continued to dominate. Rod Laver. 1962 and 69 Grandslam winner and professional player in between. Also dominated because of his strong topspin RH, which was otherwise hardly played. Connors, who could be the first to dominate from the baseline. Known for his extremely strong ambidexterity. Borg with his topspin game and his dominance in Paris and Wimbledon. McEnroe, who was synonymous with ball feel and serve & volley and dominated the tennis world in singles and doubles for some time. Sampras, who combined perfect serve & volley with enormous pressure from the baseline. And finally Roger Federer, who simply drove the baseline and net game to perfection. How can you compare Federer with Donald Budge? This is just as nonsensical as comparing Rocky Marciano to Vitali Klitschko. Could beat Rocky Vitali. Probably not. Marciano is still the greater all-time boxer. Naturally. Could a Franz Beckenbauer or a Pele keep up with football today? No. Are they among the biggest? Naturally. Material is extremely important in tennis. Rackets have constantly improved and adapted to the playing conditions. Would the Agassi of 1992 beat McEnroe instead of Borg in 1981 with his material? I do not think so. Would Nadal win a flowerpot at Wimbledon in the 90s? No, definitely not. Apart from Federer, players would have no chance against the S&V players. Of course the same goes the other way around
Guys like Connors and McEnroe stepped on a court with fire for their opponent. They would have crushed some of today's players with their mental toughness and ultra competitive mindset.
The big 3 >>>>
It's that simple
I feel if we ignore the technology and training regimes the top players of old had a different style of play than today. There were a lot more all round players back then who could happily play at baseline and come in to the net, had speed and finesse. Examples in the men's game are McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Sampras. With the exception of Federer who also had it all, most players now just seem to stay at baseline and hit really hard until the opponent makes an error. The style has changed and in particular the backhand. When I was young only Connors had a two handed backhand and maybe one or two others. These days it has completely switched and everyone has a two handed backhand (except Federer in recent times). There is less finesse and placement now and more power..
Let's say for example Sampras was from a later era and at his peak with Federer, Djokovic and Nadal. I am sure he would have been right up there with them all as he had the perfect game !
A good way to test is to give some top current players wooden rackets and see how they get on !
It's called a 'match', not a 'game'. Is this narrator a footy guy?
Which are better: modern day players or past greats? We already have the answer to this question: Novak, Rafa and Fed. They are already past greats. All of them are over 35. They are factually better than any top-10 player that has emerged in the past 2 decades. It’s mind-boggling.
Federer at 39 and Novak at 33 played inspired tennis to get to the final of Wimbledon. They’re both ridiculous. It took Novak everything he had, plus the invention of a new level of mental toughness and chess-playing to beat Federer. They’re the greatest players of all time regardless of decade - given they’ve been playing in 3 different decades now. Novak then did the same to Rafa at the French.
And in Federer we have the absolute answer. He may be the greatest player to ever lift a racket. He’s been playing and beating everyone since the 90s with a style that is unparalleled. The only way to stop a past GOAT is with a younger GOAT. Fed did it to Agassi and Sampras, otherwise they would have continued winning. Rafa did it to Fed. Novak did it to both Rafa and Fed. Thus far, no GOAT competition has risen to challenge Novak. So Old Greats are always better than modern players. If no new GOAT rises, and both Rafa and Novak remain relatively healthy, I don’t see them retiring until they’re 40+. They will continue winning. Federer is about to attempt his 4th or 5th return to the game at 41 years of age after a serious injury… 😳 if he’s 70% of the player he was in 2019, he’ll be top 10.
This kind of debate is always very difficult to have, honestly agree with most of the comments here though, we're just very very lucky to happen to have the big 3 and the golden era at the moment that makes it a bit more black and white but the rest is only hypothetical
A Borg Nadal final at RG might have gone deep into the 5th set with Nadal just taking it. Borg was the best ever on clay until Nadal arrived. Likewise Pete and Federer went 5 sets on grass and Lendl Djokovic might have gone 5 sets on hard courts.
Nadal's Racquet surface was 1 1/2 times larger than Borg's and the Clay was much faster when Both played, using Borg's size Racquet and playing on the faster surface, Borg would have won, Using the larger Racquet and playing on the slower surface Borg would have won as well, but we will never know. A lot of computer matches between them has Borg winning too.
@@Stringfelowhawke Jajajajajaja.
@@Stringfelowhawke super. Agreed, because both is a better clay court player than nadal. Main reason is Borg faced lot of clay specialists and won his 7 clay titles, where as nadal won 90% of his clay titles against very very few clay specialists. Lucky fellows nadal & djoko
@@mahalakshmid8613nadal beat djokovic at 2 semifinals and 3 finals and federer at 4 finals.. You are kidding me??? What gets tougher than those opponents
Later generations always get better in every sport. Hockey, football, basketball, ping pong… have all seen the pace of the game increase. The athletes are getting faster and stronger. Diet and equipments have all improved.
Jimmy Connors is the best💕💕
Funny, silly question. Modern era has the best athletes with best biomechanics, sport science, nutrition, physicsl training and training methods and facilities plus gear. Then again, the oldies did well with wooden racquets, and had volleys to envy for the most of current guys.
I believe, this generation is better than 80s and 90s. First of all, the competition is a lot higher. Players are more consistent and their training is extremely vigurous. Nowadays, tennis players train specifically for certain aspects such, movement, speed, power without the racket in their hands. Tennis nowadays is tougher than before and that creates better players. Imagine you are a player and you want to be nr 1 and win a big title. You have Carlor, a gifted player, sinner, Meddy, Novak and on top of this, you have a handful of very good players on lower rankings
It's impossible to compare eras because you can say today's players are better because they have teams and better training because if they faced a player from the 80's or 90's, they would also have teams and training and better rackets. Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal would be quite different with wooden rackets. One thing's for sure, the 80's and 90's had more variety in playing styles and personalities. Everything now is baseline tennis. The courts are slower, including grass. They even dressed better back then. Some of the outfits were off the chain.
Not a word about Guga Kuerten….
Mental toughness is not debated here because it is not measurable. Each generation has two or three of the finest players whose mental toughness is unmatched. Technology and training are tangible. My champion is Bjorn Borg.
Federer, nadal,djokovic are on different level. Only pete could possibly compete with them.
With Federer, Nadal and Djokovic we are living in the golden age of tennis . These three are the best male players of all time .
The 80s and 90s we’re superior. They still had fun making shots, improvising and playing. Today we have a lot of skilled hard working players. But the show less joy, artistry and variation.
Better strings has made it much easier to defend deep in the court and catching the shot makers drives.
Still fun to watch but we’ve lost the joga bonito of tennis.
People always long back for the past because the current trend is what you see nonstop now. The old serve and volley was really boring seeing it nonstop though current style is better. Although i would have liked if grass was still fast so you would still see serve volley styles one month a year
I think the 2000s were a good mix of everything. We had a lot of contrasting playstyles and it’s just been boring baseline play ever since the 2010s started.
Have you completely forgot about the 70s? Bjorne Borg, Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Arthur Ashe, Guillermo Vilas, Ilie Năstase, John Newcombe, Billie Jean King, Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova
There are just players that transcend eras. You can put any great player on any era and have them train in what was available at that time and they'd be great.
1980s and 1990s ,players were way more competitive and tougher
Their training regiments consisted of a couple of hours of practice. This guys today spend half of their day on the practice.
Not one of the old timers could have anything to look for against big 3 in their marathon matches.
@@guarana6245 they trained for more than two hours, and the current crop of young players have extremely weak mentality
Every player is good in their own ways
Cool video, but the way some of the last names were butchered was rough haha
Pretty clueless commentary... "I-van-is-sevick"... and Djokovic volleys very well, while his overhead technique is indeed fragile.
I thought Michael ‘Stitch’ was another gem…
And Byorg.
I think players get better over time in just about every sport except for in football (soccer).
Pete Sampras in his prime = GOAT
feet of clay.
I think earlier faster courts gave chances for almost any good server a very decent chance to win the match against great players.
Modern day Tennis gives less chances to decent players against the greats like Fed, Djo and Rafa.
That made the difference.
Champions in earlier decades were great servers. And today great serving will take u no where. So greats from 80s and 90s may not even win much today.
But Federer and Djokovic might have very good chances. Djokovic improved his serve in later parts of the career.
I think only Federer would have won a lot of majors in 80s.
And Nadal anyway would have 14 clay Slams.
So Nadal would have been with the highest number of Grand Slams.
Nadal & djoko would have been thrashed in the era from 1975 to 2000. Playing with smaller rackets, Very fast courts, no Hawk eye checking, they would have won very few slams, around 5 each, whereas Federer being very talented , any era specialist, all court specialist would have been the leader of the pack. If all these players had played at the same time, Roger would have won around 15 grand slams, Pete Sampras around 12grand slams, Bjornborg around 11 grand slams, all other players like Agassi, Lendl, McEnroe, connors, Becker, edberg etc around 8 slams each, nadal, djoko around 5 slams each ( Total in around 25 years- 100 slams, all these players together 96 slams
Cant say with djoko.guy has won 6 atp finals.prefers fast courts to play since his serve has way improved@@mahalakshmid8613
I think in any sport each next generation typically is an improvement of the previous generation in many ways. Not just due to technical improvements, but technological and medical improvements enhance there abilities. However what I would say is that in any sport the previous generations didn't have access to the same environments, in tennis terms thats the change of surfaces. Its well know that up until the 90s there was much more variety in how each surface plays, so the question is both how well would previous generations have fared in the current surface similarity and how well the current generation would have fared in the previous variety of surface. I think many previous players would have had better records with the current environments, but current players would have fared slightly worse in the previous variety. Personally I think Federer has the most racket skills and would have been suited to any era over any other player, whether it be with a wooden racket, massive surface variety or physical conditioning (or lack of it in the past), he'd have still had similar levels of success in any era I feel.
If there is one thing we all can use to compare all the greats of different eras, it's RESOLVE. Greatness goes beyond physical and physicality we cannot really compare as the game has evolved through the ages. But who had the greatest resolve? Who was the toughest to beat, who never broke down mentally or emotionally? Then you will find the greatest players. I thought Borg was not the most gifted player of his era, didn't have a great serve, did not have punishing ground strokes, and was dismissed early on as a great clay court player, and nothing more. But he won Wimbledon five straight years against the most skillful grass court players of his era - Nastase, Connors, McEnroe, Gerulaitis, etc. I've seen Navratilova, McEnroe, and Serena break down emotionally. I've seen Agassi give up on Sampras many times. I've seen Sampras waste points when returning serve (I'll get him when it's my turn). Nadal is mentally tougher than Djokovic or Federer. Connors plays every point like it was his last. The greatest players find the will to win when they are having a bad day. I think Graf, Nadal, Borg and Connors are the hardest to beat, with Federer and Laver being the most gifted.
Imagine Pete with new tech strings and racket even shoes, more practise and more patient from the baseline how many grand slams he could win more, you have forgot to say thag Roger has quit 40 and nole will play after 40+,pete has quit at 31 years of age....
my take on this is the same for all sports. Give Sampras, Unitas or Bird etc. a modern upbringing, with modern coaching and sports science, they would for sure hang with the best of today. comparing past eras to modern era one for one is doing a huge disservice to the old guard.
Comparison of eras should be divided into two categories , single handed back hand players vs double handed back hand players. Double handed back hand looks so illegal. It is a wonder how double handed back hand is allowed in this sport. Titles won by double handed plasters should be equal to half of the titles won by single handed players. For example if nadal, Djoker stop with winning 24 slams each, it should be treated as only 12 slams won by each or Roger Federer’s 20 slams should be equal to 40 slams , if he had played tennis double handed
No...the guys today never played with wood racquets like my generation did. Serve and Volley champions would have killed baseliners!
All things being equal, I believe that some of the greats from other eras (especially from Rod Laver down) would have been on par with the big three. At the very least would have given them all they could handle.
The answer to the question of who is better would be found by putting a wooden racquet in a modern player's hands. My guess is it would come out pretty even. With the exception of Laver. No one can compare. 1 amateur annual grand slam, 2 professional annual grand slams, 1 open annual grand slam. 19 majors (amateur, professional and open).
Yes. Just like in nearly every sport.
TV match scheduling is difficult because of the variable length of matches. Often tournament websites are often poorly run and provide poor info on draws, results and live scores. The game itself has gotten more boring, as baseline slugfests simply are not very compelling with errors resulting in much more points than winners or amazing, skillful shots. Also, the restrtained rules of tennis, with quiet crowds is also boring and frankly ridiculous. There is nothing that convinces me pro players couldn't cope with screaming fans during play. Now, if everyone is quiet and one or two people shout out randomly, or at key moments during play, that could be distracting for players, but a constant cheering and shouting should just dissolve into a tolerable cacophony that could easily be ignored and played through. Imagine asking soccer, or basketball, or even baseball fans to be quiet during play. No one would buy tickets. Bottom line? Tennis needs to be more fun and shorter. No ad scoring. No 5-set, 4+ hour marathons. Only best two of three set matches with third set decided by 10-point tie breaks. Let fans cheer and shout. Maybe only fans at each end of the court should be made to remain constantly seated, if not quiet. Give extra points for points won on volleys to encourage more coming to the net. Develop team tennis with men and women on both teams and a system of scoring for both doubles and singles and mixed doubles with winning scores determined by points won instead of games and sets. Make it fasted paced and competitive. If football, baseball, and basketball can evolve the game rules that actually improve the fan experience without destroying the game, then by all means, try some new things.
It is impossible to accurately compare eras and styles. But if you were to compare them anyway, you can only compare how they did it. Or you could try to speculate different scenarios. It’s all opinion based at the end.
What the big three have done, which no other eras have accomplished, is perfect balance between physique, technique and competitiveness. These guys just won’t quit. They won’t beat themselves. They will hit the clutch ace. Or the clutch defensive passing shot. Or just annihilate newcomers with power and accuracy. Plus them three are pretty much the best returners. They are simply the best at everything.
Could Sampras or Lendl compete against them if they born in the 80s or 90s? Idk. Maybe. But other than these two I just mentioned, i dont think there are too many that could, regardless of the era.
Sampras can't, he wasn't complete, not great on clay. Big three were competitive everywhere.
Things have changed and evolved we will never know
Yvonne Goolagong.....my favorite. Epitomizes the grace and beauty of woman's tennis of the past. And Borg was AWESOME. Thank you.
The way they talk about Michael's height, you'd think he was 5'2". He was the same height as Rod Laver and Serena Williams, an inch taller than Ken Rosewall , three inches taller than Pancho Segura and Bobby Riggs (both world number ones and multiple slam winners). He was only an inch less than Jimmy Connors, two inches less than Agassi and McEnroe, and two inches taller than the amazing Diego Sxhwartzmann. He was shorter than average pro tennis player, but not tiny. He was exactly average for an American man, and tall for a Chinese-American man.
Lendil would dominate in todays slower court services and his mental strength is untouched
Like Nadal said "If if if"!!
So the tennis version of the Jordan vs Lebron debate
First of all, the equipment is HELLA different. I grew up in the 70s and the game was significantly slower back then, and the racquets were wooden sticks with string. Technology changed the game in a big way. Pete, Andre, and several others could mos def compete with the present day players.
Just take a look the 1981 to 2002 champs of Grand Slam and the runners up! For discovering how many good player were in that era. And then, look since 2004 to 2021 the champs and against they won the Grand Slam! This next era or new era will be better! There are many good players.
Depends on what you're looking for. It's a very vague question.
The Big 3 (or Big 4 if you wanna call it that) is most definitely the best era in tennis history.
Don't underestimate Sampras
For Men’s Singles Tennis the Big 3 Era of the past 2 decades is superior to all others. Federer, Nadal & Djokovic combined have won almost as many Grand Slam titles than the best of the prior Open Era period: Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Sampras, Agassi. The Big 3 have won 63 of 76 Grand Slams (83%) from Wimbledon 2003 to Wimbledon 2022 (19 years). The other 9 greats from 1974 to 2003 (29 years) with at least 6 GS each won a combined total of 75 GS. The Big 3 have won all the 4 different Grand Slams at least once each. For the other 9, only one has won all 4 Grand Slams and that was Agassi.
That's not a fair comparison. For example, Borg retired at 26 and had already 11 GS while he never participated in AO (which wasn't as 'grand' as it is now). Imagine if he continued playing and participating in AO?
@@my8osprive I like looking at reality not imagination. Borg’s icy demeanor was hiding extreme mental pressure which he couldn’t handle after a while. Look at McEnroe who took time off and afterwards he just wasn’t as good. Singles tennis at the top level has the mental toughness which sets the great apart. What the Big 3 have done over the past two decades is unparalleled.
@@RamZar50 sure Borg had mental issues but he didn't have a team of professionals behind him, but just a coach. The big 3 have an army of pros behind them now. More money involved.
Rafael Nadal 🥇
Tennis has become very standardized .. The 80's , 90's and early 2000's players all had unique styles and their own ways of playing. everyone plays very similar today. not sure how you can debate who's better.
Easy to answer. Have modern players play with a wood racquet and see his speed slow down 40% and only a handfull of aces. Have them play without bathroom breaks and coach assistance. Modern players are simps and wimps compared to old players. I saw Borg played Vilas at French open for 5 hours straight WITHOUT a bathroom break.
Djokovic can volley. He didn't need it when he was in physical peak. But now he uses it.
Sampras wasn't that complete, not great on clay, so he cannot be compared.